|
As journalism students, we are taught that maintaining objectivity
is among the most important aspects of writing. When our staff
and the university campus saw the Traveler's recent
endorsements of Associated Student Government candidates,
we felt that a boundary was overstepped to say the least.
(Graphic
by Adam Wallworth)
|
Journalists have ethics to adhere to while writing. Presenting
information without bias and letting the reader decide for
themselves is of the utmost importance, and it takes years
of training to learn to omit one's opinion when writing.
When this rule, one of the most basic elements of journalism,
is ignored and an entire newspaper endorses a candidate, it
challenges the integrity of the staff and the paper.
Obviously, there are exceptions to the rules of objectivity
when writing an opinion column. But in the case of the endorsements
in the Traveler's senior editorial, the problems are
rooted far deeper.
If an individual had written the article, it would be justified
as an individual's opinion, but would not likely have been
published. Instead, as an editorial, the column claimed the
endorsement as the opinion of the paper, and as journalists
who had been following the candidates closely in the past
weeks.
In addition, Traveler writers are not allowed to display
campaign paraphernalia at all, and students who are involved
in campus political organizations are discouraged from writing
political stories. Obviously, as students and individuals,
it is not likely the entire staff is going to have unanimous
feelings about which candidate is most deserving of the president
and vice president positions.
But while staff members are not allowed to express their individual
endorsements, the paper is allowed to speak on behalf of the
group. The editorial claimed the staff's consensus lay with
endorsing Jeff Wood for president and Nancy Williams for vice
president.
Interestingly enough, members of our staff were informed by
Leighton Kemp, head of the UA election commission, that Wood
and Jeff Smith, editor of the Traveler and author of the editorial,
are former roommates and have remained close friends.
We find this contradiction a hard pill to swallow.
Not only are the endorsements highly unethical, but they also
have the potential to skew the results of the election. We
find this blatant act of favoritism a shameful abuse of the
power afforded to newspapers to inform the uninformed.
Equally as disappointing as the endorsements themselves were
the character attacks on other candidates. If a candidate
states that they are not out to "strengthen their resume or
bolster their ego," they speak for themselves and it should
be up to the public to weight their sincerity.
The endorsement also attributes Wood and Williams with ideas
that were also entailed in other candidate's platforms, yet
all the credit was given to the endorsed candidates. Reopening
Garland Ave., revamping the teacher evaluation process, increasing
student involvement and putting students on the board of trustees
were all ideas other candidates were running on. Many of those
candidates were the actual originators of the ideas.
Fellow students, if you're not outraged, your not paying attention.
|
