And here’s another example to corroborate your argument: Sept. 11.

On Sept. 12, every newspaper in the country had printed photos and stories describing the horror of the World Trade Center that day. I’m sure every person in the nation remembers this photo: http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/23/trade_narrowweb__300x478,0.jpg

Did newspapers censor the gory details? No.

I’m sure most journalists that day were not excited to print the details, but they did it because the public had a right to know. That’s our job.

That’s not a gruesome detail — that’s bad reporting. The kids were alerting her to a hole in her story. People shouldn’t have questions like that after reading a piece.

The students basically recognized that she left out a key detail. How did the man die? A heart attack? Drug overdose? He died because his organs overheated. It’s s detail that is mission critical to the story, and a detail that could help save future lives.

Earlier this week Richard Zednik’s carotid artery was cut by a teammate’s hockey skate. Should it have been reported as an “on ice injury to his upper body?” A “neck injury?” Of course not, tell people the truth.

Middle school students aren’t as naive as adults want to believe. They have all heard the word fuck, they know about sex and they have seen a lot more than adults care to know about. Honestly, kids see a lot of crazy stuff on MySpace and Facebook all the time. Why else would parents should be so scared of social networks?

We as journalists should not be in the business of deciding what facts the public is allowed to know. We’re in the business of reporting the truth, the whole truth.

I’m not the arbiter of what is and what isn’t good taste. I’m just a reporter. That’s all I’ll ever be.

The first question the students asked her was this: How did he die? It was a detail she didn’t include — on purpose. She didn’t enlighten the curious buggers today either. The detective told her the man died because he his organs boiled him to death. That’s a pretty disturbing detail.

Also, and I can’t speak for the LA Times, but I assume it’s true there. Many papers have a Newspapers In Education program. I remember as far as middle school, we used to have to do current events article reviews from the newspaper. The local schools here all get the paper and use them for lessons. We also have a kids page specifically devoted to news for those kids. And what kid whose parents subscribe to the newspaper doesn’t dig through the paper for the comics if nothing else?

Maybe I’m an anomaly, but I literally used to wake up and dig through the piles of my father’s newspapers (he always had about four different papers on the table) and read the ones he wasn’t reading at the moment. This was a habit I developed before I ever got out of grade school.

Finally, I suppose this varies from community to community, but there are still many adults who are offended and put off by phrases like “fuck you” and who would be especially indignant to read them printed in the newspaper. I don’t think newspapers are censoring themselves so much as showing good taste.

That’s why “family newspapers” don’t print the f-word and similar things.