I completely agree with Harris' opinion that this isn't really a satirical article. I mean, it is over-the-top shock humor where the author says things that most sane people would never say, but doesn't satire go far beyond that? The article certainly has its moments, but it never seemed to be commenting on society at large. As an aspiring satirist myself (currently working on a novel entitled April Fools), I wish it satire was as easy as writing the worst possible thing that came to my mind. Unfortunately, satire requires lots of thought, and an understanding of the word satire, which apparently nobody at Central Connecticut seem to have. I am glad he resigned, and I hope that nobody ever lets that moron pick up a pen again. I'd bet even Howard Stern could read that and be disgusted.

As a reader, my initial, gut-reaction to the column “Rape only hurts if you fight it” was disgust and disbelief that editors would be irresponsible enough to run such an outlandish piece. But, as a budding journalist, my reaction was to step back, and objectively look at the article to determine if running it was a wise decision or not. To analyze this ethical dilemma, I will use the Ginn Model.

The first step is to establish what decision must be made. In this case, it is “Should the Recorder have published the dark, satirical column about rape?” The story should not have ran out of respect to victims of rape who are trying to cope with the traumatic event, out of responsibility to sensitive readers who wouldn’t want to read disturbing content and because the satire is not easily identified and the piece could easily be taken literally. Conversely, justifications for running the article include practicing the concept of freedom of the press, allow the author to make a social statement and prove his theory that only sensational journalism attracts attention and present the reader with creative and unique stories to break up the monotony of stories that spell out what is happening (or not happening) around campus.

The key values involved in this situation that support withholding the article from running are compassion, self-respect and journalistic responsibility. On the other side of the situation, freedom, entertainment and innovativeness are values that that would be upheld if the column were to run. It is also important the people to whom the publication has a responsibility to be loyal to. First and foremost are the readers and their right to know. Also important, are the writer, editors and entire newspaper staff and their right to publish their opinion. Other loyalties lay to advertisers, past and future sources for news stories involving rape, and the college’s administration and boosters.

One possible alternative would be to print the column, but also print the opposing opinion from another writer. This way the newspaper doesn’t look like it is favoring the issue one way or another, and readers can find at least one opinion to side with. Another option would be to run a disclaimer at the top of the story that clearly states the piece is satirical and essentially readers are taking a risk reading it. Another possibility would be to run a toned-down version. The writer could still make his point, but be less vulgar, and consequently more sensitive to rape victims.

A final way to look at the situation before making a decision is to rely in the wisdom of a time-tested thinker. In this situation, I will use John Stuart Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. Mill looked for the action that would benefit the most people possible the greatest and harm the fewest possible the least. While, the only benefit of running the article is allowing the writer to publicly voice his opinion and practice his creativity. It would harm all the victims of rape. Consequently, it seems the most good would be done and the most harm would be avoided by not running the column.

Taking into consideration all that I have addressed, my final decision would be to not run the story. The cons of doing so seem to outweigh the pros. As a news organization it is vital to build a reliable reputation with your readership and maintain it by only publishing ethically sound stories, and this one doesn’t seem to fall in this category.

While reading John Petroski’s opinion piece, “Rape Only Hurts if You Fight it,” I was appalled, disgusted and enraged. As a college female, I was shocked that the Central Connecticut State University’s The Recorder would publish such an article and I could only imagine the other female students’ reactions after reading this. Although I do understand the reasons why Petroski wants his stance on sensationalistic journalism heard, I do not necessarily believe his tactic for doing so was a wise move or was ethical.

There were a number of reasons why The Recorder printed this piece, notably Petroski’s freedom of speech. Also, this piece has inevitably brought increased attention to the publication. At the same time, there should be a certain level of respect of The Recorder’s readers, some of which could be rape victims. Petroski completely abandons such respect and writes, “take ugly women. . .if it weren’t for rape, how would they know the joy of intercourse with a man who isn’t drunk?” This is incredibly offensive for women to read; Petroski impresses upon his readers that “ugly” women can never experience love or other intimate acts. Clearly, the key value that Petroski should have considered is respect for not only his women readers, and but more importantly, rape victims. According to recent statistics, anywhere between 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 college women are victims of sexual assault or rape, and this article undoubtedly angered many of these victims.

Petroski’s reason for writing this article is that newspapers consistently sensationalize and dramatize simple stories, and he was attempting to write a satire about this occurrence. However, I personally do not think that using the subject of rape was appropriate. Although I do understand that Petroski has the right for his opinion to be printed, I suggest that the managing editors should have either written a disclaimer above the piece or direct readers toward the paper’s website for the entire article. By doing so, the students would be aware that the topic is controversial and could anger some. Finding such a “golden mean” allows Petroski’s opinion to still be heard, and perhaps the repercussions would have been slightly different.