was opened up discussion on the entire issue. They still had the journalistic responsibility to get a response from the Church/BYU on the matter, but did not do that. They also chose inflammatory and erroneous words to describe the situation.

It was not a policy, as you put, that punished victims of sexual assault. It was a long-standing policy that punished violators of the HC. With the evolving requirements of Title IX that have taken place over the last while, two policies, as currently active, came into conflict as it related to sexual assault victims who also were HC violators. Portraying this a policy to punish victims of sexual assault is disingenuous, which is what the trib did and what others want to do.

Pretty much everyone understands that the long-standing policy needed to change, because it discouraged the reporting of on/near campus rapes to the Title IX office. I'm glad the issue was reported--it needed to be; I don't even care if it was the trib who reported it. But I do care very much that the trib both mischaracterized the issue and took additional steps to turn the article into a hit piece. I don't have a problem the what of things, I have a problem with the how of them.

The trib had the opportunity to show journalistic integrity in bringing this to light to the general population in a responsible manner; instead, they chose to do this slight-of-hand and with characterizations they know are factually not true. That's my issue with it.