Did To! Did Not!

"Why the Statesman's publication was delayed The Chicago Tribune on Thursday, November 19 posted an article implying that Stevenson High School delayed publication of its student newspaper over concerns that it contained articles harmful to the school’s reputation. The charge is false. Students in the past have run articles related to smoking and drinking, teen sexual activity, and crime, and they will in the future. The Statesman’s publication, originally scheduled" (d125.org)

"Administrators at Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire spiked Friday's edition of the school's award-winning newspaper because of concerns about stories on drinking and smoking by honor students, teen pregnancy, and shoplifting, the editor said." (Chicago Tribune).

The first quote was taken directly from the Stevenson High School website. This was released as a statement from the administrators. The second quote was the first paragraph of the Chicago Tribune article in Friday's morning paper.
I write about this because if you look at this issue with an unbiased perspective, there is certainly a civil liberties issue underlying. SHS is claiming that they postponed the release of this weeks edition because the paper itself was not fit to be released and not because of inappropriate content. They argued that topics such as underage drinking, smoking, and sex have been prevalent in the past, and will continue to be present in future publications of SHS's "The Statesman".
On the other hand, the article from the trib says that the school chose to put its foot down finally, barring these inappropriate topics from the paper. The article sees it as a violation of the student's freedom of press and speech.
Initially, the rebel inside of me sided with the tribune, believing that our schools are always trying to subdue everyone and protect its image at all times. But I tried to be a cynic for once, and discovered a very logical way of explaining these events.
The paper has been publishing these stories for years according to the statement from SHS. I consider then that someone at the tribune was opposed to the publications of such taboo topics, and maybe tried publishing this article in order to stop SHS from printing these stories.

I was wondering if anyone could think of any other reason why these events took place? Who was right or wrong in the situation. Should the media have the right to make potentially harmful accusations such as these?

Dueling Tragedies

This past week the US experienced another tragedy, this time in the form of a mass homicide at Fort Hood Military Base in Killeen, Texas. Thirteen were pronounced dead in the shooting. The events proximity to the Veterans Day holiday has lead to mourning across the country.

I first learned about this incident on my Yahoo homepage. I was shocked at Yahoo's decision of making this headline a secondary story, overshadowed by an article about "the ten best suburbs in America". I could not understand the reasoning for this order. I looked on and read a three sentence long report of the incident, this only added to my disbelief. Our country had endured a great loss and all Yahoo has to say about it is three measly sentences. These circumstances by which I learned of this horrific story generated a terribly impersonal rationale for this occurrence. I have a hard time admitting this now, but I essentially looked past the incident, thinking that because soldiers had died it wasn't so bad. I had gotten myself to believe that soldiers were in a line of duty, and death was a bi-product of their work. After thinking about the incident more deeply I realize the exact opposite was true. Soldiers are a beacon of heroism for this country, and should be immensely valued and respected for their commitment to their nation

But I could not let this go. I began to wonder how I let myself come to this conclusion. I'm not a bad person and I support our military completely, how could I have justified such a horrible crime? I drew a connection very quickly to the Virginia Tech shootings. It was a shockingly similar situation. Two individuals, both deranged, and both motivated by a dislike of their standing in society and the ideals of the country they lived in. Despite the similarity of the massacres, I had a very different reaction to the VT shootings. Basically, when I learned about the shootings, I was scared. I learned of this incident in a similar manner, except TIME had don't a little better job than Yahoo. I remember the headline in all caps across the entire page, with an image of the victim's family members crying.

I was impacted by the VT shootings more than the ones at Fort Hood simply because I was selfish. The tragedy at Fort Hood occurred on a military base, a context that is foreign to me. But the murders at Virginia Tech, on the other hand, took place in a school, a realm that I experience on a daily basis. I had, however naively, come to believe that schools should be, and were immune from the horrors of violence. This assumption was shattered by the events at Virginia Tech. This left me demoralized, and even slightly scared that the possibility of such a thing happening at my school. But where had all these sentiments stemmed from? My initial reactions of both the shootings had come from the media. Those initial reactions to these shootings led me to rationalize poorly, and even made me think inhumanely. This makes me wonder if the media should really be charged with dispensing such news if the manner in which they do it can affect a persons own humanity. Do we charge the media with too great of a task? Do we even trust the media to deliver such information?