When religion and business and marriage collide

An article I found on the freedomforum.org website, discussed a New Mexico photogrpaher who was sued for not agreeing to take photos for a lesbian couples commitment ceremony. The photographer argued that she wouldn't take the job because it conflicted with her relgion. The couple sued and said Elaine Huguenin, the photographer violated the states Human Rights law and descriminated against them based on sexual orientation. The couple won and the photographer now has the pay for their trial and lawyer fees.


I have mixed emotions about this. One side of me argues with the ruling and I feel that she does have a right to say "NO, I don't want to take that job." After all, restaurants and other business always "reserve the right to refuse service" so why should this be any different.

However, on the flip side I agree. If Elaine expects to be sucessful and professional she has the be ready and willing to work with all sorts of diverse people. It's like with any job. You leave all your stress/problems etc. with home, lovers etc at the door and you do your job. Thats what this lady should do. She should put her religious beliefs on pause and do her job as a photographer.

To see the full article go to:
rulinghttp://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19921

Multimedia grows

In a recent article on poynter.org by Steve Myers, he talks about the continued development of multimedia journalists and how we still have a long way to go.

Myer talks about the recent National Press Photopgraphers Association awards and the judges comments on this competition.

The judges point out whats working (audio, pictures etc.) and what isn't (making things too flashy).

I think a reason for this good grasp of the concept but why we still need to grow is because its a developing process. Colleges and universities are beginning to understand how much of a need we have for journalists who can do it all and so they're beginning to teach those video practicum classes and the like ,rather than the cut and dry reporting like before.

I think that in 5 years, you won't even be considered if you can't shoot film,take pictures, write your story and edit all while drinking a starbucks latte.

In a recent article on freedomforum.org, David L. Hudson Jr. writes about the attempts of congress to implement further restrictions on cable and satellite broadcasting.

Currently, the cable and satellite industry has little restrictions set on them and so they are more able to show violent and "inappropriate" materials.

While, I don't want to see people being gutted or gang riots on my cable channels I don't want to see these regulations taken too far.

The point in cable and satellite is to provide shows for people are more grown up and want to view more adult materials (and no, Im not referencing "adult videos "etc. )but simply stuff that I can relate to more than ABC morning cartoons or Will and Grace.

If we allow congress to regulate our cable and satellite, whats next? Are they going to want to make sure textbooks don't say too forward of things or novels from apporaching too sensitive of subjects. SO, while we should make sure its semi-tasteful I don't want to see my cable become just like my network tv.

GET REAL

The AP recently posted a story on the firstamendmentcenter.com, talking about the recent case turned down by the supreme court in which a smoker in california was suing tobacco for their target marketing to teens. The court declined to hear the case because they said it was within the first ammendment and the company was fine.

Really people? If someone sued every company because they're ads targeting people. We would have moms suing Wal-Mart because they but everything from there. Woman suing Covergirl because they wear makeup all the time and only buy covergirl. We'd have men suing Budweiser because they bought a big giant horse and drink beer all the time.

People should be smart enough to know what ads are. YES, they are an attempt to get you to get their product and yes they target specific audiences, but if you're stupid enough to not ask questions and get their product, thats your own fault and you deserve what you get!

Brett Favre-Inspirational to Journalism?

In a recent article on poynter.org by Jacqui Banaszynski, she discusses how Brett Favre's football career and his moral and actions on and off the field can be put into a lesson book for the newsroom editor.

Personally, I have no clue. I don't think I have ever watched a single professional football game-let alot Brett Favre and how he has acted in the NFL.

But from reading her descriptions and reasoning, I agree.

I also think that while these ideas and rules or whatever you want to call them most definitally apply to the editor, I think alot can also apply to a staffer as well.

She talks about working with joy and how Favre loved his job. I think this is one that applies to everyone. If I was to go in as a writer LOVING the story I'm writing and loving the interviewing and everything, than my story is going to be better!

Take risks- I think this is more of a editor specific guideline. As an editor you need to take risks when deciding which stories to write. You shouldn't be afraid to write the story on the violent sorority president, even though you know you are going to get flack for it.

A big one I agree with is giving credit when its due, there is nothing better than hearing your editor say THANK YOU and GOOD JOB! Hearing this makes you want to keep working hard to get those compliments and those who don't get those compliments want to work hard so they can begin to hear them.

BUT there was one idea I didn't agree with. The idea that you should expect the best from your staff and nothing less. While in theory this is a good idea. The truth is you can't. You're going to have the writer that can't write or usually messes up quotes or interviews or gives incorrect info. So why should you expect something different and expect a better result, to only be disappointed?

Read the entire article at:
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&aid=139070

We still have the freedom speech...even if some people don't want to hear it.

In 2001, Novato High School senior, Andrew Smith wrote an editorial on "illegal immigrants" who weren't able to find work through legal routes and either ended up becoming drug dealers or doing manual labor in which they recieved pay in cash and under the table. The editorial was ran in the school's paper 'The Buzz'. Administration recieved complaints and the school said they were sorry and that the editorial didn't go with the school's policy and they tried to confiscate all remaining editions of that paper and ended up delaying the printing of another article written by Smith. Smith than challeneged the school where a local state court agreed with the school. Smith appealed to a 3-seat panel of the California Appeals Courts and won.

The court ruled that even though the article was written in distate and offensivly, Smith's voice was protected.

The story goes on to talk about more details and explains that following the suit, a discussion and debate of sorts was held, allowing both sides to talk on the issue of illegal immigration and in the end everyone ended up happy!

My thoughts on the story: I'm glad the Supreme court didn't hear the case and agreed with the final decision. I feel people get a little too upset when they don't hear what they won't and think that its wrong. I once had a friend verbally attack me last year because the Simpsonian had a pro-life ad insert in an edition of the paper. She told me she didn't "want to see that shit, if both sides weren't going to get a voice". I explained to her that it wasn't the view of "The Simp" but a paid ad and if she wanted to find a pro-choice company to pay for an insert in the Simp we could arrange that.

It just annoys me how so many people don't want to hear anything but their side of the story and even when they pretend to listen the other side. They're just listening and not hearing. They're not critically thinking about what people are actually saying.

Of course, the case of free speech always gets muddied in public school systems I think. There's additional tape sometimes and the overbearing parents who don't want their kids seeing real life before the age of 20.

Where's the middle man?

In his article "Hero or Victim: There's no other choices, Roy peter Clark talks about how in media a quadrapalegic or person in a wheel chair with diabilities is always either the victim or the hero and we never seem that as anything else.

Clark talks about his experience with his neighbor who was always seen as the "hero" in news stories in local media. He also talks about the case of Brian Sterner, who was dumped out of his wheelchair, onto the jailhouse floor by not only a woman, but a woman of color as well and while these are both not important in the story, theey make for an interesting twist on who the usual victim/perpertrator's are.

Clark points out that until the media starts portraying the disabled as something other than a hero or a victim, society won't change their views and I agree.

Once again, I refer back to my GRC class and how 90% of what people do,say,hear,feel,touch, whatever is impacted by the media. If in news stories and movies and tv shows we keep making the kid in a wheelchair the protaganist or the kid who no one likes, society is going to think only that. That disabled people are to either be hated and mde to feel awkward or that we should throw ourselves at their feet because they have such horrible lives.

I think disabilities should be dealt with like race and that its a big society thing...for the most part. Ovbiously there are very real physical differences that cause issues, but if a person in a wheelchair gets pissed when people feel bad for them or offer to help. Then they better not complain when it comes time to them needing pushed or something and no one does.

So, maybe someday we'll see a newstory where our focus is on John Doe who did something amazing and we interview a disabled person as the supporting detail and not the lede.