Redefining the Standards of Free Speech

“Colorado State University Student Newspaper Under Fire for Bush Editorial” -http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297708,00.html

It all boils down to a matter of free speech. After the University of Florida’s incident on Monday, The Rocky Mountain Collegian posted a four-word statement in the opinion section of the newspaper (http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Taser.This-2984348.shtml?reffeature=recentlycommentedstoriestab), causing an immediate uproar.
Published the same day in the Collegian News section were the comments of Lee Christian, a local attorney and technical journalism instructor at CSU (http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Taser.Incident.Ignites.Debate-2983312.shtml). The article also included the general perspective of students on campus and the new free speech polices on campus effective earlier this year.
Fox News followed up on the repercussions of the publication now under investigation (original link). CSU’s director of student media, Jeff Brown, noted on the “internal investigation into the decision-making process used…in choosing to run today's staff editorial comment."

Though no credit was given to the Fox News reporter, the correspondent provides an unbiased presentation of the facts in an ethical fashion. The writing, however, lacks appropriate sources; the article itself is merely a summary and the reader must search for the additional story posted with the headline. “Taser incident ignites debate” was an article I had to search for, despite the same publication date as the headline causing all the commotion. Ironically, the link to the additional story made the Fox News story appear censored… the original topic at hand.
From a personal perspective, it’s difficult to criticize an article published in an opinion section of the newspaper. Given a source, the headline was displayed as popular opinion; something an editor had to meticulously consider before printing the article. The headline could have just as easily read the opposite and elicited the same outrage. It would seem more of a true injustice to prohibit people from voicing their opinions, and from a journalistic point of view it would be hard to attack an article that has all the proper sources.
In defense of the Fox News story, they merely presented the facts based on the statement and the general outside opinion in printing the headline. The summary of actions lacks, but doesn’t violate any ethical standards.