As a professional paper, the Chicago Tribune receives a great deal more letters than our humble production does. To answer the most pertinent questions and complaints readers levy against the paper, the Public Editor Don Wycliff has taken to writing a column in response. It is from him I am borrowing the format of this column.
As I just referenced, this previous Monday, Jan. 30, the editors of Student Life retracted an article. We removed our support from a piece about Ariel Sharon, fearing it to be the product of plagiarism. I will break the silence and admit that I alone decided that article should make it into Forum that fateful day. However, our readers were not satisfied with hindsight. As is so often the case, they demanded blood. A letter to the editor on Feb. 1 tells us, “Student Life should be ashamed of themselves for printing an article with so many clear factual and historical fallacies (which could easily have been researched to check for accuracy). This is libel and the newspaper itself is accountable and responsible for it.” While we are indeed mostly ashamed of what goes in our paper on a regular basis (not really), it is not for the reasons listed above.
What gets printed in this paper does so for a small set of reasons. First and foremost, we need to fill space. I am forever begging those I know to write something for me. Often, we lack enough material to choose the “best” columns to put in – we just put in what we have. As I hope I made clear, interesting columns are a concern secondary to this.
Another common complaint is that our coverage is not wide enough. One reader suggests that “perhaps [Student Life] could. care less about the gossip and so-called ‘newsworthy’ incidents involving drunk students, and shed a positive light on Wash. U. through coverage of ALL the great cultural events that occur here” (Letters to the Editor, Jan. 27). This idea betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what our goals are as a newspaper staff. We do not want headlines solely about “positive” issues, if only because no one would read the rest of the paper if that were the case. This is not to give the facile defense “we print what you ask for,” but to say that some accommodations for student taste are unavoidable. Moreover, we are a tool for the defense of student interests. This is why we care more when tuition rises or students commit high-profile crimes than when a student-produced play gives a great performance.
To more deeply address this issue, another reader asserted that “Whatever reasons you guys put out there to excuse your publishing decisions, I hope that you can take a step back from your need to instinctively defend the paper” (Letters to the Editor, Jan. 25). You may think that this article is a case in point for this reader, but I honestly tell you that you can bash this paper all you like. I do not defend the newspaper’s goals as my own, but I will defend those who work hard for this paper so that students here have something to read at least partially tailored to their desires. We do not make “excuses” for our decisions, but we will discuss them and admit to our mistakes.
In a criticism that pops up every so often, a reader writes that “Student Life is a RACIST PUBLICATION that speaks ill of the values of this community and this university. And if Stud Life is as morally bankrupt as it has shown itself to be, I won’t be surprised if this letter is not even printed” (Letters to the Editor, Jan. 23; emphasis in the original). This particular letter was responded to by both the current and previous editors in chief, but perhaps not strongly enough. Aside from news stories that are of particular interest, our reporters and contributors make choices regarding what they want to write about. If there is a glaring deficiency in the paper’s coverage, perhaps it is because the students who have committed to those areas do not choose to work for the newspaper, nor do they submit editorials. Besides that, we appreciate controversial submissions, as they generate a surge in submissions.
As a final note, I will say that the section you are reading exists as a forum for the views of our readers. The views expressed are not our own. Hell, most of the time the views I express are not my own. This does not absolve us of any responsibility for the things we print, of course, but it is a consideration.
On a final note: we appreciate your submissions, so keep those letters coming.
Joshua is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor.