That's one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said on here (and that's saying a lot). Whether it's true or not has nothing to do with whether it is sensationalist. Something can be one hundred percent true and nevertheless be one hundred percent sensationalist. The root of sensationalism (and sensationalist) is
sensation. Sensationalism excites the senses, which provokes an emotional response. When a story is sensationalist, people retain the emotion of the story while dismissing or forgetting the important facts of the story or the social relevance of the story. Sometimes sensationalism comes at the expense of the facts (old adage in sensational journalism - "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"), but most often it is factual or specially selected facts that support the sensational.
Well, it's certainly debatable as to whether or not the restricting of certain Web sites retards the learning process, but there is little question that an agenda is being forced. But the fact that an agenda is being forced was already established in the story without the laundry list of sites. The CBS News report (and most others, including the original source story) that didn't include the list had no trouble establishing that fact. The addition of the laundry list was purely sensationalist used to garner an emotional response of the conservative audience since the items on that list invoke emotion. What's most problematic, and sensationalist, is that the laundry list is not the complete list. The author tells you right there that it's only "some" of the blocked sites, and then he goes on to list, in his opinion, the most sensational blocked sites, and contrasts those with allowed sites that will further the emotional response of the conservative reader by listing the unblocked sites (a very small, selected list, hardly a complete list).
The piece in the OP, as compared the one I linked, is an excellent example of subjective partisan journalism, the opposite of excellent journalism. Just look at the two headlines:
Student Accuses High School Of Blocking Conservative Websites
The Types Of Websites A School Does And Doesn’t Block Students From Visiting Says A Lot
The first headline is fact-driven, whereas the second headline is agenda-drive and ignores the fact that it's just an accusation at this point and moves right to a subjective conclusion. The first headline is good journalism, the second headline is not.
At least the headline in the OP is true to the story that follows, because the story is about which sites are blocked (the ones that deal with issues which are important to you, dear conservative reader) and about which ones are allowed (the ones which deal with issues that predictably enrage you, dear conservative reader). But it doesn't really tell the story of what's going on, what happened, who is responsible for it, how it happened, and why it happened. You know, the Five Ws. The original source (Fox News CT) does a far better job at bringing you the Five Ws. Even Briebart does a better job.
Here's the school district's Web page, where the original public letter from the superintendent on the matter can be found:
Region 14: Nonnewaug High School
Or, here's the direct link to the letter:
http://www.ctreg14.org/uploaded/homepg_photo_rotation/June_19_2014.pdf
For those who clearly have not taken much if any journalism classes in school, I highly recommend at the very least becoming familiar with the basic principles of journalism.
News values
Journalistic objectivity
Journalism ethics and standards
None of the above Web pages are even remotely close to even one semester of a college course of Basic Journalism, but at least it provides you with some basic information with which can be used to differentiate good and bad journalism, something that a lot of people here apparently cannot presently do. When I read a story or watch one of the news, the subject matter is of course important, but often just as important is whether or not I'm being lied to or manipulated, fed an agenda, or am having something important withheld that should otherwise be a part of the story.
Here's some homework for those interested. Here's an example of extraordinarily bad journalism, where facts and opinion are unabashedly intermixed on a News Web site:
Jesus, Republicans and NRA banned on school website | Fox News
The facts are there, at least many of them, and there are no lies (although at least two pretty blatant misrepresentations). It's not objective, nor does it pretend to be, but see if you can figure out why it's not fair and balanced.[/QUOT
SO, if it's sensational, in it's true sense, there is no reason to put it out?
I never once said it was "fair and balanced, nor do I except that it would be. I also don't expect the "mainstream media" to put out anything close to a "fair and balanced" story. Keep in mind that this is the same mainstream media that is doing very little to expose this administrations use of the IRS to limit political opposition. This is the same main stream media that "sensationalizes" EVERY gun crime committed, to the point of nausea. They have also been known to use "non-facts", half truths, and bald face lies in just about every story that has to do with firearms or "gun control".
IF, and I did say if, that list WAS REAL, it SHOULD be printed, whether it is "sensational" or not. It would be important to do so. Restricting the ability to research political/educational subjects, in such a way that it "forces" an agenda, is little different than banning books.
How in the world can a student become an informed voter, say on the issue of gun control, if that student has his access to the information be restricted to only one view point?
