Whew, that was a close call!

On top of all the other controversial acts of the Virginia Tech shootings, the media decides to run a photo of an injured male that "appears" to have his genitals showing.

Photo Director John Scanlan assured that the picture did not expose the student. Scanlan pointed out that many newspapers across the country also published the photo, taken by Alan Kim of the Roanoke Times in Virginia. The image of the student's rescue had become a powerful symbol of the tragedy.

The photography editor was forced to choose what was more important- the anatomy of the picture or capturing the tragic moment. It was obvious that the latter was of more importance.

The area of controversy is the male student's lap but sources say it's a tourniquet that's sticking out. His leg was first wrapped with wire because he knew he was bleeding to death. Then when paramedics reached him, he was wrapped with a second tourniquet.

I think the photograph was used in the proper manner because like the photographer editor said it truly captures how tragic the event was. People have a right to see the truth of events. I'm sure the majority of media outlets doing ongoing coverage of the aftermath of the shootings know to be sensitive in their photographs and articles and above all show good taste.

Photos appear too perfect

Photographers count as journalists too. Allen Detrich, a photographer for Toledo Blade, has been caught red-handed altering his photographs and has chosen to resign from his job.

Detrich had been doing his own altercations of photos for so long it easily slipped into his daily routine. He automatically fixed images in Photoshop even when they were strong enough photos to stand on their own.

Detrich claims that most of what he did was confined to cleaning up backgrounds and that he was good at capturing moments, but hated distracting backgrounds.

This is still ethically wrong because Detrich is altering the truth. Objects found in the background of photos give more information to the viewer, such as where the photo was taken, time of day, and much more.

The SPJ Code of Ethics states journalists should "seek truth and report it by being honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information". This code goes into further detail toward photographers and videographers. "Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Always label montages and photo illustrations." Detrich not only altered photos but also altered his photography career for the worse.

Death is enough harm

If you've picked up a newspaper or watched any television in the past forty-eight hours then you've heard the disturbing news of the Virginia Tech shootings. Coverage is being dealt with in numerous ways. Any potential harm dealing with individuals involved in this accident should be avoided at all costs.

Christine Suh, an ex-member of Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA), sent in a letter to Romenesko about how she opposes the media coverage actions offered by AAJA. The following is a statement from AAJA on how to cover the recent shootings.

As coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting continues to unfold, AAJA urges all media to avoid using racial identifiers unless there is a compelling or germane reason. There is no evidence at this early point that the race or ethnicity of the suspected gunman has anything to do with the incident, and to include such mention serves only to unfairly portray an entire people.

I agree with these actions; this way, potential harm is kept out of readers' way. Families and friends of the victims are already dealing with enough pain in this horrific situation. Why add any more tension?

The only way media would be justified to identify race is if every single single person mentioned in the story is labeled by race. However, this would look quite ridiculous, which further backs up the actions of AAJA.

When covering sensitive events such as this, media must be careful to maintain fairness, honesty, and serve the needs of the public. If a person involved in this story were to be isolated because of their race they would have their rights violated. Every single person has a right to not be discriminated against. Mills also supports the action of AAJA by claiming we should act in a manner that produces the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

Journalist caught living in the 1910s and 1920s era

Frank Lockwood, religion editor at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, inquires about a journalist who recently slipped up in an obituary in the New York Times. The incorrect usage of one word in the obituary was not only wrong in its context but it also insulted the deceased person.

In the 1910s and 1920s, the term referred to a Christian who believed in the "fundamentals" of the faith -- the Virgin Birth of Christ, his sinless life, his atoning death, his bodily resurrection and his second coming in the clouds of glory.

Nowadays, when the term "fundamentalist" is used, it is used in a derogative manner. Unfortunately, for Johnny Hart's family and friends, this term was used in his obituary to blindly describe his religious views.

Editor Bill Keller summed up this mishap by saying, "Too often we label whole groups from a perspective that uncritically accepts a stereotype or unfairly marginalizes them."

Included in the five part ethical system, rights were clearly violated here. Mr. Hart was discriminated against due to his religion. Also, the honesty guideline was broken because it is evident to many that Mr. Hart was not a fundamentalist, instead he was a devote Presbyterian. It also appears that this obituary was not written in an objective manner. Instead, it seems as if the columnist used too much emphasis with their own opinions/feelings toward Mr. Hart.

Hopefully the obituary columnist has learned their lesson and knows next time to double check their choice of words. People today seem to be way too concerned with placing precise labels on people. What's wrong with simply referring to Mr. Hart as being a "Christian"?

Determined Wolf marches on

Breaking news broke out Tuesday in the journalism world. Josh Wolf was released from prison after serving seven and half months. He fought for protection of his tape, which captured criminal activity, and he failed to disclose this evidence to law enforcement officials. He is also fighting for more journalism rights for all "journalists". Wolf claims he is going to take up this issue with Congress and lobby for a shield law.

Wolf has definitely marked his place in history, but will Congress ever grant him his wish for more journalism protection? I don't think Congress will give in with where it stands on this issue simply because today, we have journalism bloggers, You Tubers, and much more that appear online. Journalists have now fallen into a category which has become way too broad of a group. A vast majority of these people are not professional journalists either, yet they are still considered journalists because they bring news to the public eye.

If all these "journalists" were granted more freedom, then our society would face great danger. Anyone could hide evidence of a crime, whether it be petty or heinous. That's just down right scary. The law enforcement works with the government to keep us safe and secure. As Hobbes says, we must give up rights we have in the state of nature in hopes others will also give up rights, so we can achieve peace.

Hey, that's my work!

Are journalists as smart as middle school writers? In most cases, one would answer 'yes' to this question. However, Yahoo journalists must think plagiarism is an okay thing to do. The story Yahoo "reported" on about Le Bron James' new home has plagiarism written all over it.

The Akron Beacon Journal reports that paragraphs have been lifted from their reporting almost word for word. Also, interviews with Le Bron's neighbors, who said they've had no contact with Yahoo reporters, have been mimicked as well. The first sign of skepticism occurred when it was noted the Akron Beach Journal reported their story on last Tuesday, with another paper writing about the same story Wednesday, and lastly, Yahoo published "its version" of the story on Thursday. Akron Beach Journal doesn't have a problem with the other newspaper because they actually worked for their information and reported the story in a more professional manner than Yahoo.

Isn't plagiarism one of the first things taught to students at the beginning level of writing? Don't teachers threaten students with major consequences if they're caught plagiarizing or if their work even remotely resembles words directly from a text? Then why in the world would adults with the supposed profession of a journalist try to nip a corner and steal hard earned work by someone else? There must be a major misunderstanding of what is included in proper online journalism ethics.

According to the document of Ethics of Online Journalism, "No plagiarism" is the first item on the list. If you're going to borrow someones information then it is required to refer to the original source by attaching a link or give a name of the individual/group who published the information first. Number two on the list is "Disclose", which means you have to tell how you got your information. Most importantly, Yahoo completely obliterated the "Be honest" guideline. If people wonder about your honesty, you lose credibility. I'd say after this case, Yahoo has earned a free pass to a long stay in hot boiling water.