Err, why?

I understand that this person is allocating limited resources with the best of intention, and probably with direction from institutional leaders. This decision begs some important questions, however. Are students in TF classes less deserving of access to equipment? Is English 12 (almost always taught by a graduate student, post-doc or adjunct), a required course, not an appropriate space for new media pedagogy? Does this policy not unfairly burden the Writing Program? What does this say about how UNC-CH values Rhetoric and Composition?By contrast, is a faculty taught course (generally not a WP class) assured to be the right place to explore technology in the classroom or new media? Are students in faculty taught courses handicapped in such a way that they cannot fight the masses at the library? Are faculty more able/less able than TFs to guide students through technology assignments? Do students learn more in faculty taught classes? Are the courses worth more on their transcripts? What would be alternative ways to divide the "haves" from the "have nots" than by instructor rank? The subject matter of the course? (Courses about new media get the thumbs up, others don't. . .)

But an interesting, and to my mind scary, argument came from Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate.com, who says that "his online publication doesn't have to think about offending people the way newspapers do." He claims that because he runs an online news source he doesn't "have to make that same choice...I think we simply operate on the Web in a less paternalistic environment. In a newspaper or print magazine there is finite space, and you're making decisions about what you can fit into it and you're inevitably making decisions about what's suitable for your reader."

One implication of his argument, as I see it, is that since the internet does not demand editing, editorial choices aren't really necessary. Considering that the ethics of print jounalism often comes under fire, it seems alarming that internet journalism may have even lower ethical standards, or no standards at all.

It seems like standards are going to be necessary eventually. People talk about the Internet as a great "democratizing force." The editor of the Washington Post recently called the Internet the "wild, wild west." Can a healthy democracy really flourish in the "wild, wild, west?"