There is much discussion over censoring photos and video clips for news. It is hard sometimes to tell waht will offend people and what the public has a right to know. In my opinion, very very disturbing images should only be revealed when there is no other way of expressing what happened. In the video clip we saw today of the Govenor shooting himself, I do not think the whole clip needs to be shown to express what happened. The public certainly has the right to see some of the images from it but I do not think they need to full clip or the image with the gun in his mouth. I think the photos should be allowed up until you know he is not going to shoot anyone else. At this point the audience is fully aware that he is killing himself with a gun, it does not complete the story anymore to see blood pouring out of his head or his lips sealed around the gun. I think a general rule should be applied for situation like this regarding images. If it were one of your family memebers would you want that photo/video running?

I think the LA Times issue with running the P.Diddy story is a tough ethical call. As the LA times is arguing they could have had no idea that the FBI documents were fabricated. However, since this is such a high profile case they needed to do some serious investigating before running this story. If there was any doubt in their mind (I would find it hard to believe if there wasn't) then they should have done some serious fact checking. I do not think it would be that hard to discover these documents were fake, which makes me think the LA time did very little background work. In which I think they are wrong for running the story. Also, since this has been such a long and on going thing (Tupacs murder) it seems like it would be common sense to look into every detail and fact throughouly.

In response to Newsweeks cover regarding the Tiger "lynch" joke, I think the cover is almost as bad as the joke itself. What is the point of showing a picture of the noose.. everyone knows what lynching is, why do they need to make it more graphic. I think this cover shows very bad taste and is not sympatheitic towards tiger at all. Im sure he was already offended by the joke and then has to see a huge rope on the cover of a magazine. While I think this was an awful thing to run, im not sure firing the editor was necessary. That is pretty drastic but I'm not surprised becaue I'm sure many people were severly offended.

I do not think the comment about "lynching Tiger Woods in a back alley" was appropraite at all. While I'm sure this woman was trying to make a harmless joke there are somethings that shouldn't be joked about publically. Lynching was and still is a very serious subject to many people. The word has so much hatred behind it that it cannot just be thorwn around and joked about. The fact the Tiger is biracial makes this whole situation a lot stickier. So in no way do I find this joke funny or presmissible at all.

In regards to the Vogue cover I do not see an racial undertones at all. Not in a million years would I have even thought of King Kong when I saw that picture. I think the cover is displaying an image of two successful and attractive celebrities (more or less). Since LeBron is so successful and such an icon I think he is protrayed in a completely postive light in the cover. By adding Gisel I think it just keeps the magazines audience interested. Since Vogue is prodominately a fashion magazine it caters towards women, and some women or people interested in fashion may not even know who Lebron is. I think this cover and photo shoot is a creative way or intertwining fashion/beauty and sports.