We should strive to do more photos; they're definitely "worth a thousand words" if taken well, and as Chris said, they draw readership. In print, we currently have pretty text-heavy formats; it might be cool to up the visual aspects of the web, especially by including more than one photo with a story.

We place extraordinarily high standards on our celebrities for "good behavior." These standards (existing on an astonishingly thin line of perfection, a toes-width away from pretension on the one hand and deplorability on the other) are outsourced; our society can't fulfill them, so we shove all our expectations off on our favorite pretty faces. The judgement we pass on celebrities when they digress from the tightrope-sized path we've shoved them onto is totally hypocritical, considering our own faults, and puts those famous individuals under a crazy amount of pressure. The pressure, in turn, tends to drive them towards further digression/meltdown. It's a dangerous spiral that we all perpetuate.

No, it's not moral; it's false advertising, because the entire point of documentaries is that they're true. But this is pretty funny - makes me think of that episode of "South Park" where the boys were watching the History Channel's "historic" evidence for aliens having been at the first Thanksgiving.

I'd agree with Veronica about news organizations today. They intentionally blow things out of proportion, because bigger catastrophes get bigger ratings. So does quickness; sometimes this, as we've seen, is striven for even at the cost of accuracy (remember the incorrect reporting on the Obamacare verdict?). They're reporting this disease like it's the next smallpox, while even in the story, sources are saying they need more information about it before they can draw the most accurate conclusions. This story seemed somewhat sensationalized.

Bear in mind the bias within the story; the headline is practically dripping with it. From the outset of the piece, we're being given most the sensational, outrageous angle, designed to make us detest what's happening. I agree that the actions described in the piece are totally ridiculous, but that's not really being disputed; it's more interesting to examine this story's techniques and selection of evidence.

I'd say that dress codes are still valuable - for both sexes - in high school, because as forward-thinking as we may claim to be (self-expression through clothing, yahoo!), a certain standard of appropriateness should be maintained, if only because high school is populated with young people blooming into their sexualities; in short, high schoolers are horny. Revealing clothing is more distracting to short-attentioned, hormonal teens than to anyone else.

I'd say that religion is still very much influential in our culture, and that its influence isn't as much fading as it is congealing, or sharpening, around certain groups. If religious influence is fading, its vestiges are hanging on tenaciously... Think about how much religion is inferred in our culture today; "God Bless America," and the pledge of allegiance are only the most superficial examples. Religion is less influential than it's been in the past, but strong religiosity is still cited as a driving force - and is a litmus test for election - of congresspeople in many parts of the country. Religion's influence is still very real.

I'm laughing so hard you can't hear me. Hardy har har. A better way to upload archives would be primarily as photos - like we do in the archives page - or else we could re-type select important stories manually, if we want to have accessible text. It's definitely important to put as much of our archives as we can online, but we certainly can't stoop to this level.

This is a very interesting topic, and was covered well; as soon as I was reading it and wondering to myself how it was possible for Coy to identify herself as female so early in her life, the story covered that sort of thing with its section giving a basic education about the logistics of transgender identity. I agree with Emma that the publicizing parents' motives are a bit iffy, and think that Georgie brings up a good point, too. For me, the most interesting part of this article is that kind of a question: how early do we really know who we are?

I read a proceeding story about this in the Monday Times, and at that point, the circumstances of the "kidnapping" were still uncertain; it could've been real or a prank, and they laid out the known evidence without bias. I think that the NYT was demonstrating responsible journalism by covering a mysterious "kidnapping" and, even in their story on Monday, clarifying the various possibilities regarding whether it was real or not. It's good to see that they followed up on this story as more truth emerged.

Any press is "good press" for events like these, because when something goes in the paper, it seems more legitimate. I don't hold it against the Times for covering an interesting circumstance like this, nor do I see their coverage as an endorsement.