At N.C. State, the student editor has the final say regarding content. Assuming the content is legal, the editors can pretty much put anything in the paper they desire. Of course they are also obligated to maintain the paper as a public and open forum and to print corrections/clarifications as necessary. They must also maintain the paper’s credibility. After reviewing the cases below, the Student Media Code of Ethics and the material on journalism law, think through the problem given the limited information below and the potential causes/solutions. What would you do in this situation?

1. In August of 2005, a columnist wrote a column about “sorostitutes,” a somewhat derogatory term used within the Greek community. The headline read: “Sorostitutes Are Weak and Wounded—And They Are Everywhere.” The columnist wrote, “…We shouldn’t really make fun of these bilge-ridden, rancorous old sows; well, we shouldn’t ‘just’ make fun of them. We should also feel sorry for them.” The members of the sororities on campus were furious and staged a rally to protest publication of the column that the author of one of the 10 letters to the editor said was “offensive and unnecessary.”
2. In March of 1991, the Technician published a photo of a woman and a man behind a bunch of beer bottles. The headline read: “If You Must Drink, Do It Responsibly.” The individuals in the picture were not identified in the caption and the photographer made no attempt to contact the people when taking the photos, shooting instead from across the bar. However, the woman in the picture came forward and sued the paper for libel claiming she had been defamed and that the photo had a negative impact on her job. The paper refused to print a retraction.
3. In the summer of 1978, the Technician printed an article about changes in the Division of Student Affairs. Tom Stafford, then assistant vice chancellor, talked with reporters who told him the article would be printed in the first fall edition, confirming the appointments of new staff positions. The reporter did not make the confirmations and published the article in the last summer edition. Stafford said, “The result is the most confusing, most inaccurate article I have read in the Technician during my past seven years on campus, excluding the April Fool’s editions. Virtually none of the information is correct.”
4. In 1999, the Technician was sued for libel after publishing an editorial that was, according to the attorneys involved, “misleading and factually inaccurate.” The editorial stated that “students pay less locally, but 15 cents or every call outside of the Triangle, as well as an additional 30 cents per call charge.” The actual rates by Wolfpack Telecom are 5.9¢/minute with no origination fee. The editorial failed to acknowledge the lower rates for calls made without the travel card, and failed to state that the higher rates only apply when a calling card is used. “The editorial is false, inaccurate, misleading, defamatory and damaging to Wolfpack Telecom.”
5. On Feb. 1, 2005, the sports editors had a rough day. They had a blank page to fill. So they got a photo submitted by a person featured in an article on Australian Rules football. However, the paper failed to get copyright permission from the photographer, Sefton Ipock, but still published the photo in the paper and online. “It appears that there was no attempt to find the origin of the image before it was published.”
6. In January of 2006, the Technician ran a column, “Sometimes It Can Be Necessary,” on drinking and driving—”sometimes there’s just no way around it.” After going through a litany of ways to avoid getting charged/convicted of a DUI, the columnist said, “What I am trying to say is, drunk driving is just like anything else: there are smart and stupid ways of doing it.”