Baton Rouge middle school teacher Joanne Cowgill raised a question in a letter to the editor that was posted on The Advocate’s website on Feb. 19.
In her letter, Cowgill expressed her rage at the use of the word “Sodomy” in the front page of the local newspaper, which is distributed in the middle school where she works.
While I agree regulation of the media is necessary, when the coverage of a story requires certain words and language, the press cannot filter its information to accommodate younger audiences.
Regulation is important. It keeps unintentional consumers from being exposed to information they might not be able to handle.
This is the reason movies and television shows get ratings and why harsh language is not allowed on public radio programs.
However, when it comes to reporting news, regulation could cause the public to be misinformed about an issue or prevent them from learning at all.
When there have been inappropriate scandals, like the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction or rapper M.I.A. showing the middle finger in past Super Bowl performances, audiences had a right to express outrage over inappropriate content being blasted on national television for everyone to see.
Newspapers shouldn’t be held accountable on the same standards as a Super Bowl performance or a Good Morning America episode.
While newspapers can’t print whatever they want, allowing them to print necessary information to keep the public properly informed is the reason we have freedom of the press in the first place.
Organizations, such as the Federal Communications Commision (FCC), are in charge of monitoring the media and make sure the content shown is appropriate for all age groups. However, they focus mainly on the regulation of television and radio stations.
Movies and television are most likely to be noticed by immature viewers because they are a source of entertainment, which is why those mediums are the most closely regulated.
Newspapers are sources of information, and while some include family-friendly content, they are mostly seen in society as an adult item. The average child only pays attention to a newspaper when they need it for an arts-and-crafts assignment.
And even if a child were to look at a copy of the article in question, most of them would just ignore it and continue living in the perfect ignorance that comes with being a child in modern day American society.
Which brings us back to the aforementioned question. I believe the use of a potentially explicit word in the headline was not just appropriate, but necessary in the coverage of this story.
Headlines are supposed to grab the reader’s attention. In the case of The Advocate’s front-page story, the headline read “Sodomy repeal effort stunted,” and it certainly did its job.
Headlines also serve to give insight into what a story is about. Once again proving that The Advocate’s use of the word wasn’t the paper “going too far,” but rather them making sure that the public knew what the subject of the story was.
While offensive to some, the headline wasn’t intended to cause controversy. It was simply stating what the story was about, a subject that might be inappropriate to children, but still something that the public should be aware of.
News coverage serves the purpose of informing the masses, and in cases like The Advocate’s front page story, sometimes a newsroom has to think about who is getting informed, rather than who is getting offended.
I believe they made the right decision.
Jose Bastidas is a 20-year-old mass communication junior from The Woodlands, Texas.