An online newspaper produced by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Department of Journalism and Mass Communication

Anna Nicole Smith death video: OK to run

On Feb. 8, 2007, 39-year-old Anna Nicole Smith, former Playmate and geriatric oil billionaire’s widow, was pronounced dead on arrival at a Florida hospital. Friday morning, a German television station broadcast footage of paramedics performing CPR on Smith while wheeling her out of the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Hollywood, Florida., where she earlier collapsed.


Several websites posted the video immediately, and it has been circulating the Internet since. Splash News & Picture Agency reported that rights to the graphic video sold for more than $500,000.


Did the paparazzi cross the line with Anna Nicole Smith’s last moments? And more importantly, did news outlets cross the line by running excerpts?


The issue here is whether or not it is appropriate to capitalize on human death, celebrity or otherwise, by selling footage of it to the media. And whether the media should buy it. It's becoming an issue of increased concern since the new technology of the Web, namely You Tube, allows what are essentially snuff films - like the Saddam Hussein hanging video - to get a mainstream audience.


The Anna Nicole Smith video, about two minutes long and shot from a distance of about 50 feet, is rather benign. Because a sheet covers the body and an oxygen mask covers the face, it is impossible to even determine that Smith is the person lying in the stretcher.


In this case, it was perfectly acceptable for the media to provide footage of the reality television star’s last moments to the public.


One cannot really blame a person for not wanting footage of their death to be made publicly available. However, Smith could have done a lot to prevent the video from being taken in the first place, simply by not constantly putting herself in the public eye.


In 1994, Smith married 89-year-old, billionaire, oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall. This gained Smith, at the time an exotic dancer, international media coverage as many news outlets speculated she was a “gold-digger.”


From 2002-2004, she aired in “The Anna Nicole Show,” a reality television series that focused on her private life, solidifying her celebrity status. A non-celebrity’s death would not be filmed, much less viewed by millions globally.


The demand for celebrity gossip has hit an all-time high. Americans are hungry for celebrity news. Even though Smith is no longer alive and able to defend herself against the tabloids, it’s hard to imagine that she would protest to the footage of her death being sold for profit. In fact, she controversially fed the media hype surrounding her by selling footage of her daughter Dannielynn’s birth in Sept. 2006.


Also recently sold were photos of her “commitment ceremony” with Howard K. Stern, as well as the final pictures of Smith, her late son Daniel, and daughter Dannielynn taken in Smith’s hospital room just a few days before Daniel died. Stern also sold footage of himself returning to their home in the Bahamas for a reunion with the baby after Smith's death.


If these things were not considered private for Smith, it’s hard to imagine she’d feel any differently about her death.


Cameras are everywhere in this age, and there’s really no escaping that, especially for prominent celebrities like Smith. Of course, if the video had been more graphic, things might be different. That wasn't the case, however. Though some may be disgusted, it’s very simple to refrain from clicking “play”.


Smith’s death is being handled in the same manner as her life: Completely exposed to the public eye. She devoted her life to that cause, so it's hard to argue the point now.


This editorial was written by Melissa Schramm as the result of an editorial board meeting featuring Schramm, John Whitehead and Nick Schurk.

Boot cars, don't take them

To learn more about the City of Milwaukee's proposal to confiscate the cars of repeat cruisers, go here.


    The misleading term “cruising” actually refers to an impromptu, road blockading, and often liquor-fueled party with speakers blaring and, sometimes, guns blazing. While such reckless assemblies are hardly legal, to confiscate the vehicle a suspect drives there—which may or may not be his or her own—is not in the spirit of our Right of Assembly.  We believe a more measured, technologically innovative response can be just as effective while sparing the community and workforce the “collateral damage” of the policy and its current proposed alternatives.


    A major concern is the potential for innocent bystanders.  We can easily imagine a single, working mother lending her car to her son for the night and having her only tenable means of conveyance confiscated before work the next morning.  For people already living paycheck to paycheck in Milwaukee, car confiscation could be something they and their families never recover from.  This is an unacceptable potential consequence of a policy meant to improve the health of the community.  


    At four in the morning, after a night of drinking, first-time cruisers may not fully recognize the illegality of what they are doing.


    We think a stern warning is sufficient to sober them up. First time offenders should therefore only be subject to increased fines for cruising-associated crimes like loitering and disturbing the peace. 


    Sound systems are both a central component of the crime, the culture, and of the vociferous vehicles’ vanities. That’s why we think second-time offenders should have their sound systems confiscated in addition to still higher fines. That should help nix the narcissism and diffuse the disruption.


    We do, however, recognize cruising is an escalating and serious problem that is tying up the police force when it could be doing more important work. That’s why we’re suggesting what we believe is an equally effective deterrent to chronic cruising that lacks confiscation’s ugly side.   We believe this proposal will effectively address the problem with minimal harm to the community.


    For the habitual offenders who are the ultimate perpetuators of cruising culture, we are open to temporary vehicle “collaring”.  The Milwaukee Police Department already has an ample supply of house arrest collars and simple modifications could be made to outfit them for vehicles.  If a cruiser used his or her vehicle outside of the times they had proven they needed it for work, a signal would be sent to a patrol officer who would take appropriate disciplinary action.    


    Applying this penalty for at least a few months, depending on the severity and number of cruising related crimes the suspect has been convicted of, should be long enough to remove them from the game.  This solution of course has the added benefit of ensuring any other drivers of the suspect’s car could still obtain necessary access to the vehicle. 


   We cannot endorse the proposal of Ald. Michael McGee to provide Miller Park as a hangout joint for potential cruisers, either. The failure of social alternatives in other cities demonstrates that the attraction of cruising is its very illegality.  We cringe to think what a few thousand inebriated bar hoppers, police supervised or not, might do to that poor neighborhood.    


   An inexpensive modification of existing law enforcement equipment can supply the deterrent Milwaukee wants without harming the people Milwaukee needs.  For now, we can afford to keep Miller Park from becoming Downtown’s after party.  Still, if only there were more to do at 2:30 a.m. on a Saturday…  


-This editorial was written by student Nathan Hebert, based on a group consensus of a Journalism and Mass Communication Department Editorial Board. The members of the board were Hebert, Wajiha Chaudhary, Sean Dineen, and Karen Garcia.

Thomas didn't deserve an asterisk

The Journal Sentinel published an editorial about nominee Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito on Nov. 1. This article has been dubbed the Asterisk editorial and has received national attention and criticism. It included the following sentence:

“In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.”

We feel, however, that Justice Clarence Thomas does not deserve that asterisk. In fact, no one “deserves” to be diminished to a punctuation mark. It is disrespectful of the schooling, effort, and hard work Thomas has gone through in order to be qualified for the position that he holds today. His accomplishments show that he is on a top rung of the ladder, not just a “nobody” who landed that job by chance. He has been appointed just like all of the other Justices. It is offensive to any human to be thought of as a mere *.
 
By giving him an asterisk, it is implied that Thomas is not black based on his viewpoints. The “mainstream black America” is a stereotype that can’t even be defined. We do not understand what “mainstream” black America holds as their main belief or motto. White mainstream America cannot be defined, and neither can mainstream black America. No race can be pigeonholed into a single viewpoint. Therefore the claim that he does not represent those views is unfounded because those views cannot be pinpointed.
 
The editorial board replied by saying they do not mean all black people must think alike, but goes on to say “there are some fairly evident common themes derived from common experiences among African-Americans in the United States.” These common themes are general beliefs and will not automatically include every black citizen or even a majority of black citizens. There are common themes among all races that do not apply to each individual of that race. “Mainstreaming” beliefs is stereotyping that only certain people can hold certain viewpoints. Just because someone of a race does not hold a “mainstream” view (which is unclear what that is exactly) does not exclude him or her from that race.
 
We also believe Justice Thomas’ beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to his job. He is there to objectively interpret the Constitution of the United States of America.  His qualifications are what matter, not the color of his skin, as Martin Luther King Jr. had hoped for this country. The position is not a partisan one. It is a position that reflects fairness and objectivity.
 
Even if a board is comprised of all white men, they can still make decisions in favor of women’s rights and civil rights. The same goes for a board being made up of all black men, or all Asian women or any combination. The position is to interpret the Constitution, not to instill personal beliefs in order to change the Constitution, and race should not be a factor.
 
-This editorial reflects the group consensus of students in the UW-Milwaukee Critical and Opinion Writing Class of Fall 2005 

College newspapers were right to run the cartoons

For more background on several college newspapers' decision to print the Muhammad cartoons, go here and here.


Violent protests overseas spurred by the publication of controversial Muhammad cartoons in Denmark were the harsh reality that challenged many local college newspapers in this country. That some editors at various institutions of higher learning chose to publish these cartoons was appropriate and necessary.  Not only would censoring this decision have been an affront to their constitutional prerogative, it also would have undermined the vital role that freedom of expression serves in academia.

In response to hostile criticism received from outraged opponents of their decision, editors accurately cited freedom of the press as guaranteed under the Constitution as their defense.  We agree that these editors were correct; their argument is indisputable and, therefore, their decision justified.

There’s no question that a disturbing facet of this news story was the violent reaction to the Danish publication of the Muhammad cartoons.  This fact, however unfortunate, demanded the re-publication of the cartoons – if only to exercise the freedom to do so.  By yielding to fears of one segment of the population, offended based on its personal religious beliefs, is to erode the very foundation on which this country was built.

We also believe that college newspaper editors committed to reporting timely news stories that inform and educate readers are also duty bound by ethics, integrity, and responsible news reporting.  It is reasonable to expect that college newspaper editors would strive to ensure that all facets of an issue or story are presented as accurately as possible. 

When pertinent information is intentionally or inadvertently omitted by editors, they perform a disservice to the readers who rely on them, thus jeopardizing the valued trust of their readership.  In this case, the decision to include a contextual framework for a more comprehensive understanding of the situation may have helped prevent the aftermath of outrage.

Flemming Rose, former Soviet Union correspondent and editor who first published the cartoons in Denmark, said his reasons for publishing them were by no means malevolent.  Rather, the cartoons were a response to a rash of European self-censorship incidents that were founded in fear.  He cited specific occurrences involving a comedian, illustrator, artist, and even the Danish Prime Minister, who felt intimidated when dealing with issues involving Islam. 

He saw these instances as indicative of a dangerous trend where freedom of speech was succumbing to “fear of confronting issues about Islam.”  Convinced of the newsworthy value in this story, he viewed these illustrations as an effective vehicle for journalistic communication.  He apologized for offending people, but stands firm by his decision and his right to publish material that some may find offensive.

Rose also readily embraces the positive impact the publication of these cartoons has had in Denmark as well as Europe.  The issues of freedoms – of expression and religion – as well as respect for immigrants and people’s beliefs, are part of a larger dialogue where constructive debate, specifically with Danish Muslims participating, is breaking down the barriers of fear and ignorance. 

In retrospect (hindsight is always 20/20), had college newspaper editors included a scholarly explanation of the violent Muslim reaction overseas they might have invited the kind of discourse Rose describes, instead of further volatile opposition.

Thoughtful debate and dialogue, specifically regarding unpopular or controversial topics, are principal educational tools in institutions of higher learning.  Only through respectful, open, and free exchange of ideas, beliefs, and values can knowledge and empathy ultimately triumph over fear and ignorance.

The decision to publish the Muhammad cartoons in college newspapers was not only an essential, explicit illustration of political and religious freedom – it was academic.

 
This editorial was written by student Diane Loos, based on the position of an editorial board consisting of Journalism and Mass Communication students. The students on the board were Loos, Lori Horbas, Danielle Johnson, Mary Lepak, and Aaron Lind.


Unfair and Inaccurate

By Katie Krause
Nov. 24, 2007

In a recent article in The Marquette Tribune, Sarah Milnar wrote a story about life at UWM, which ultimately ended up sounding like an article promoting Marquette as the better school to attend.

Milnar discussed topics such as the night life and partying, academics, student living, crime, and the other side of the city in her article about UWM.

Not only is this article unfair, but it is also very inaccurate.

The majority of the quotes in this article came from UWM freshmen, and only one from a senior. Milnar chose to use quotes from freshmen to sum up her beginning question of the piece, which is asking what University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee students are concerned about most. Of course the typical freshman response to this question was partying.

Coming straight out of high school into the college lifestyle, partying is going to be pretty high up on the list of importance for many freshmen. It’s the first time they are out on their own in life and free to do whatever they want. However, freshmen have only been on campus for a short period of time, and probably are still getting used to UWM. Interviewing only them about life at UWM isn’t going to get you the most accurate answers.

There needed to be a wider range of ages that were interviewed in this article for it to be considered accurate.

Milnar goes on in her article to discuss the academics at UWM, and just barely gets into the subject. She talks about how the average ACT scores of students attending UWM are lower than those at Marquette; how the library closes early and this could contribute to not as many places for students to study; and how some freshmen believe that you have to be smart to attend Marquette, but UWM will take anybody.

She can’t honestly say that that’s all there is to the academics at UWM. What about how some of the departments at UWM are ranked the best in the nation? Or how there are many students who graduate with a job already lined up for them thanks to UWM? If someone wants to talk about the downfalls of the academics at UWM, be sure to talk about the positives too.

When the article gets to the section discussing crime around the UWM campus, Milnar doesn’t bring up Marquette’s statistics on the topic to compare the two. However, Marquette was compared to UWM on every other topic that she had discussed thus far. It's likely that discussing the crime rates at Marquette would make UWM shine and look like the safer university.

If the schools are going to be compared in this article, they should be compared on every level. When it comes down it though, crime exists everywhere. It exists in the smallest city, to the largest--obviously, the bigger the city, the more crime. Milwaukee is a bigger city, therefore there is more crime. Both Marquette University and UWM have options for the students in order to try and make safer decisions.

The article was just too biased. Since the author is a student at Marquette University, obviously she thinks highly of her school. There’s nothing wrong with that, except when it comes to talking down about the school you’re writing about in order to make yours look better.

If the article was supposed to be about life at UWM, it should’ve been just that, life at UWM, not life at UWM in comparison to life at Marquette. And if the point of the article was to bring Marquette into it and discuss the differences between the schools, that’s fine.

As long as you’re being fair about it and discussing the positives and negatives of both schools.

Brave the cold: Schools should have stayed open

In Wisconsin during the 1960s, there were 137 days with below zero temperatures, and in the 1970s, there were 138 days below zero; so far this decade, there have been 24 such days.


Without turning this into a debate on global warming, these numbers are noteworthy. A below-zero day is, for this generation is much rarer and, in relation, a much colder experience than it was for our parents. This being true, we may not be properly adjusted. Therefore, should schools have closed during last week's subzero temperatures?


Absolutely not. There is simply more to teach, more to handle, more to deal with than ever before in today’s schools, especially at the elementary and secondary levels. We need to take advantage of as many school days as possible.


Milwaukee Public Schools are required to have 180 full days of class in a school year, with five to be taken off for conferences or weather difficulties. As there are more conferences and teacher-administrator workshops in a growingly complex educational environment, the allowance for bad-weather cancellations shrinks considerably.


The brave citizens of Milwaukee are a tough bunch—to a point. That point was reached last week when temperatures dropped to 10 below zero with wind chills at 30 below zero. Milwaukee’s public schools closed, although some districts in other nearby areas did not, and the city slowed down considerably in the biting cold. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, however, chose to battle the elements and did not cancel classes at all last week.


As reported by local news stations, the various school officials and decision-making bodies were in some cases very late in informing their students about school closings, and there was considerable confusion on the UWM campus as to whether or not class was being held. Some students stayed home while classes were in session, while others braved the elements.


One would think there would be a more standardized, efficient method at UWM, MPS, and surrounding school districts for dealing with these situations that would lead to less confusion. The West Allis-West Milwaukee school district’s website, for example, states that school closings are based upon criteria like “Current weather/safety conditions” and “Highway and road conditions.” It does not, however, include in depth details into specific temperatures or road conditions that justify a school closing.


Every year, these events come up, and chaos ensues. Perhaps it’s time that school officials at the collegiate and K-12 levels develop a better plan for how to deal with such inevitable situations.


There should be a cutoff time by which a decision on school closings must be made, and that time should be sufficiently far in advance of the school day to ensure all students and families receive the message. Poor reporting of the status of classes made many UWM students skip lectures and some students in the public schools unnecessarily show up at school.


The show must go on, the schools must stay open. In order to achieve this end, perhaps greater education is the key. Schools should take it upon themselves to take a moment to educate their students and families about the procedure for cold/adverse weather conditions.


Inform them clearly, when the weather starts to turn cold, what the exact procedure is. Just as importantly, provide advice on how to properly handle those bitterly cold days, suggesting to the students and families that the schools will remain open in difficult weather conditions. Communication between the schools and students ahead of time can eliminate confusion and wasted days later on in the season.

This editorial was written by John Whitehead as the result of an editorial board meeting featuring Whitehead, Matt McFall and Nick Schurk.

Take Cruisers' Cars

We’ve all been there. There’s nothing to do on a Saturday night. Why not take the car out for a quick spin? No harm in that.

For me, living in a suburban community near Madison, it wasn’t a problem. A quick drive never amounted to anything more than that: Me, alone or maybe with a friend, driving to nowhere in particular.

But in a city like Milwaukee, problems occur.

Cars back up traffic. Streets get crowded. People move slowly, if at all. City blocks are kept up at night. It’s not a pretty sight.

How do we alleviate the problem? First, we look at what these young persons are craving: Something to do! They’re bored, they’re restless, but most of all, they want to do something – and they have their license, so why not drive?

But when their driving becomes destructive (sometimes literally), there comes a time when we must start punishing these young adults in order to hold them accountable. Driving, after all, is a privilege, not a right.

So what should be done?

We have two recommendations. The first is a three-strikes system which would allow for first time offenders to be “let off the hook” so to speak. A first time offender may just be at the wrong place at the wrong time, or not fully understand the problems associated with cruising.

If the person receives a second strike, he or she may finally “get the idea,” and stop driving around at night.

If the cruiser receives a third strike, the actions of that person should be seen as unacceptable. They have already received two warnings, and have now done it again anyway. It is our recommendation that a third offense constitutes confiscation of the person’s car.

Many issues came up between us in coming up with this decision. What about young adults who were borrowing someone else’s car? Is confiscation a harsh penalty?

We determined, however, that the first issue would not be a problem; someone should always know what is happening with his or her car, and if they allow someone to use their car without fully knowing what they plan to do with it, it is their own fault. The second issue is addressed in the fact that they’ve already been warned twice of the consequences of their driving. Therefore, it’s their fault for not adhering to the warnings, and it’s acceptable to take their car.

Our second recommendation is that there should be a designated cruising point, on certain days, perhaps at Miller Park. This would remove those cruisers who wouldn’t adhere to the three-strikes law, making it easier for cops to arrest those who break the law as well as give otherwise law-abiding people a place to spend their nights driving in a legal setting.

We understand that people don’t operate the same; some wish to drive their vehicles at night while others might stay in. We don’t mean to say necessarily that people don’t have the right to cruise but instead recognize that it affects other people in the neighborhood as well. Because of this, it is important to diminish the number of cruisers in the city. We feel that our recommendations, when combined, would do that.

The editorial was written by student Christopher Walker based on the group opinion of a Journalism and Mass Communication Department editorial board. The students on the board were Walker, Nicholas Schurk,  Keri Stein, Sarah Walls, and Rosalynn Wolfe.


College newspapers should not have published cartoons

When the Muhammad cartoons were published, many saw it as a practice of “freedom of speech” and of the press. However, the cartoons only stereotyped the Muslim people people and their link to terrorism.  This is why it was not appropriate for college newspapers to publish such insulting cartoons.

Newspapers relay information to the public. In turn, the public decides how it will take in the information. It is important that newspapers communicate their ideas so that they are understood as intended. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, it seems the newspapers are claiming that the Muslim people are at fault for the misunderstanding.

While flipping through a newspaper, it would be hard to avoid this sort of cartoon and being disturbed by it. What seems to be the most upsetting thing is the timing of these cartoons. Islam and the practices of the Muslim people are not something new, so why is it that now is the time to start producing these cartoons?

The United States holds that all individuals are guaranteed their "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion". For this reason people enjoy coming to live in a democratic society such as the United States of America. It should also mean that one can be guaranteed to feel safe while practicing his or her religion. 

Those same individuals should be able to practice their religion without having their beliefs ridiculed, especially at this time. Although the college newspapers were publishing the cartoons to explain the violence, it could’ve been easily done through descriptions of them. Responsible journalism was demonstrated by the larger newspapers that decided to not publish.

When the Dutch newspapers first published the cartoons, they backed up their decision to do so so by arguing that it was a practice of their freedom of speech. However, once the American college newspapers began to publish them, it did not further the cause.  In either case, it was still inappropriate and uncalled for.

Instead of informing the public of the current reactions to the cartoons, the newspapers added more fuel to the fire.  It makes no sense to have published the cartoon when the cartoon itself was the issue. All that was accomplished was an even bigger misunderstanding of the Muslim people.

Newspapers ought to understand that although there’s a constitutional right to “freedom of speech” and the press, there’s also such thing as being responsible when considering what will be published. The college newspapers simply decided to test the waters again by publishing the cartoons and awaiting a reaction.

It is always interesting that the violence and the reactions to the cartoons were blamed solely on the Muslim people. It would make a little sense if the newspapers themselves took some responsibility.

The publishing of the Muhammad cartoons in college newspapers should not have happened. Anyone who has ever faced being stereotyped and having his or her beliefs ridiculed would understand that there is something wrong with this picture.

Newspapers should use their “freedom of speech” and of the press to possibly educate and inform the public about what could happen as a result of irresponsible journalism.


-This editorial was written by student Karen Garcia, based on the group consensus of a Journalism and Mass Communication Department editorial board. The students on the board were Garcia, Wajiha Chaudhary, Sean Dineen, and Nathan Hebert.