The Daily Nebraskan's lead story on Thursday, "Under the Radar," about Timothy Haverkamp, a prisoner convicted of murder who now gives tours at the governor's mansion, has proved controversial for all the wrong reasons.
The article spurred a short-lived ban on the Daily Nebraskan attending the governor's press conferences. The Daily Nebraskan followed by printing two reactionary articles, a staff editorial and cartoon.
In all the self-serving, masturbatory sparring between the governor's office and the Daily Nebraskan, so many important conversations have been lost.
Instead of a childish spat in which both the governor and the Daily Nebraskan made themselves the center of attention, we could be having a powerful dialogue about recidivism, the prison industrial complex and our justice system.
Though the time for that conversation certainly isn't past, perhaps what is needed even more, in light of how this issue has been handled, is a conversation about rights and responsibilities within the journalistic process.
The Daily Nebraskan was within its rights to print "Under the Radar." The First Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court decisions have assured them that right.
And our interpretation of the right to privacy has traditionally excluded people convicted of crimes - in many cases long after they have paid their debt to society.
Even though printing this story was within their rights, was it a responsible decision?
Walter Williams, founder of the Missouri School of Journalism, wrote in the Journalist's Creed, considered the standard for journalistic ethics, "I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible."
However, Williams went on to write "that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service."
It's fair to say with little debate that this story did not compromise the welfare of society - it has yet to incite public lawlessness - but there are two other tests here that are far more questionable: Was this news, and was its full measure of public service provided?
Though this story had the potential to satisfy both, the way in which it was - or was not - framed and contextualized failed to make it responsible and, in the process, failed its readers.
A free press has a responsibility to, as the saying goes, "Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted."
Although Haverkamp is responsible for a heinous crime, through his work at the governor's mansion, he has been working hard to contribute positively to society, something that is harder to say about the Daily Nebraskan in their covering of this story.
The Daily Nebraskan, in the way they covered this story, has jeopardized the public service he's been doing through the kind of journalism that stinks of the sensationalist "To Catch a Predator" style of investigation.
Placing the words murderer, governor and fourth graders together in a story does not make something news. It only makes for sensationalism at best and fear mongering at worst.
What does Haverkamp's story show us except that he is a model for the positive potential of a justice system built on rehabilitation rather than incarceration?
Is the real news here that we spend billions of dollars a year incarcerating people without getting reduced crime or recidivism rates? According to a 2008 study by the Pew Center for the States' Public Safety Performance Project, one in every 100 American adults is in prison.
In the last year, we spent over $49 billion in corrections, but about half of released prisoners return to prison within three years. Nebraska's corrections budget tripled between 1995 and 2005, while the prison population in Nebraska grew 34 percent in that time period.
This is the context in which Haverkamp's story resides, not in the details of his 1985 crime or the sensationalism of his work at the governor's mansion.
"We work in an atmosphere of unparalleled freedom to print whatever catches our fancy," said Dorothy Kalins, a contributing editor and former executive editor at Newsweek. But, she warns, "As journalists and publishers we are expected to evaluate the world for our readers; the words we choose, our very thoughts are given uncommon weight."
This is a responsibility that is unparalleled and that rests on both journalists and readers. As much as journalists have a duty to act responsibly, we, the readers, have a duty to demand real news that provides for the public service.
Rather than touting their right to print whatever they please, the Daily Nebraskan and the campus community they serve would benefit from a reevaluation of the role responsibility plays in their journalism and attempt to frame their work within that responsibility.
Lee Heerten is a senior political science and ethnic studies major. Alex Clark is a senior political science major.
is a member of the 
