Saying it like it is

Today, I’m going to look at a question sent via email from an anonymous “Concerned Alumni.�

I won’t republish the entire missive, as it is very long and detailed (thank you for that by the way – the more detail you give me, the more specific my answer can be), but the gist of it is that he questions a news article about the current squabble in the SA over the constitution. Specifically, one paragraph irks him:

“Thus, the SA is now in a similar position to how it was last year at this time: running under a much-criticized constitution, shaky election rules that need to be revised, a prospect for a referendum to consider a new constitution in the fall, and a vow to revise election rules to make them less corrupt before the next election.”

He takes issue with the assertions that the constitution is much-criticized, that the election rules are shaky, and the assertion that there is a “vow to revise election rules to make them less corrupt before the next election.�

In our Alumni’s opinion, these are all statements that are far too opinionated to be in a news article.

Now, as anyone on the executive committee can tell you, I’m a little bit obsessive about separating news and opinion content. I generally think of them as things that should be completely separate. In fact, our standard on that is a little bit higher than most student papers. For example, our news writers don’t write opinion, even for fun. They are news writers. I don’t care what it’s about, they won’t be writing a column while I’m around. Most anywhere else, not so strict.

In news articles, I do urge writers to try to attribute everything that is an opinion. And I think they do a pretty good job of it.

But sometimes, a spade is just a spade.

In modern-day journalism, there is a reluctance to just say it like it is. Sometimes, a fact is a fact is a fact, no matter which political PR machine is trying to convince you otherwise.

The best example of this is what is happening in Darfur, and how news organizations are covering it. There is a reluctance to call it “genocide,� because the US government’s press people won’t call it genocide. So newspapers act like wimps and ignore a fact because they don’t piss off the White House press secretary.

That’s what I call “complete and total bullshit.�

What’s going on in Darfur is genocide. Plain and simple. When you deliberately try to kill off a distinct group of people, it’s genocide. It’s a definition. Look it up.

Not calling it genocide is two things – a sheer lack of willpower, and a willingness to pander to politicians, which could be seen as a bias of its own.

So, how does this apply to our situation?

We say things like they are, regardless of what is politically correct on campus. When we write about Darfur, it’s always genocide, not anything else.

So, much-criticized constitution? It is much-criticized. If enough people seek to replace it that it goes all the way through a referendum and court cases, obviously a sizeable group of people aren’t happy with it.

Shaky election rules? When people from all sides criticize them, even people who won under them, and they allow a massive amount of violations not just about actual incidents, but about how the incidents were handled and how the handling of the incidents were handled, and then they spill over into student court… well, I and anyone with a brain would call that shaky.

And the “vow to revise election rules to make them less corrupt before the next election?� That’s just a fact. That’s what people have been vowing to do. Are they actually corrupt? Not for us to judge. Maybe there will be an editorial, but it certainly won’t be coming from the news people. But senators are saying they are corrupt. It’s our duty to report that.

We’re always going to say it like it is, no matter who we piss off. That’s just the way we operate, why we’re here in the first place.