The following is my personal critique of an article (published in the December 18, 1998 issue) by Justin Keller, sports editor for The Bruin, regarding a so-called 'underground' newspaper. Comments can be sent to The Bruin at [email protected].
The original text is displayed in black, my comments are in red.
-Matt Distefano, Junior, McMinnville High School
Anti-Bruin conspiracy surfaces
Recently it has been rumored that a certain group of people is soliciting funds on school grounds in order to finance an underground newspaper to rival ours. Their motives are based around the idea that Rob Saxton, principal of our school, and publisher of this paper, censors The Bruin.
This is certainly amusing, as the paper for which Canfield was collecting money was not, and will not ever be an 'underground' newspaper. The intention was to, through the use of talented writers, reporters, photographers and professional publication, produce a quality newspaper that would be run entirely by students. It is apparent to anyone who looks into it that Saxton is taking control of The Bruin. Up until this year, he has never been referred to as the publisher of The Bruin, nor has his name been attached to sales packets. Obviously he has more power now than he did previously, and this just adds to the already unpalatable quality that censorship lends to written work. As for motives, I suppose it is worth asking how if this 'Anti-Bruin' paper is only an 'underground rumor' that the Bruin staff knows the reasons behind its conception. Perhaps the best answer is that The Bruin and her staff know nothing about The Gay Bear, and wherever hearsay and gossip come up short, they simply make up their 'facts.'
First and foremost, The Bruin is a school newspaper. When adults and students read it, they view it as a representation of our school, and therefore it is important. The truth is, we take out paper very seriously, every idea of every story is taken with great solemnity. Certain radical ideas need not apply, and therefore, to a certain extent, our paper limits itself to include quality subjects detrimental to the school and its environment. This is hardly an infraction of the first amendment.
This is exactly why students like Canfield felt the need for an alternative to The Bruin. Like it or not, The Bruin is censored. For this reason, an alternative NEEDS to exist to report on events that don't fit the happy-go-lucky pop-song definition of 'news' that The Bruin is forced to conform to. 'Certain radical ideas' DO need to be expressed; healthy debate fosters an intelligent, informed, and attentive student body, whereas such plebeian subjects as how many cans were collected by club x or who won a volleyball game a month ago merely cause student opinions to atrophy.
The underground paper came to surface as a result of someone who used to be on our staff, and will go unidentified. He has since expressed his views of the paper on chat rooms and made his claim against Saxton. No one was amused by it. He even came to our room to buy an ad for the underground paper. We were not amused.
I'm curious about Keller's sources for the information regarding Canfield's chat room antics, and whether he can very that anything said was actually said by Canfield himself. Since I know for a fact that Keller can NOT verify any of this information, I have to wonder how befitting of The Bruin's supposed journalistic integrity this is. Also, the continual references to Canfield's paper as 'underground' are rather hard to swallow, especially after stating in the above paragraph that he attempted to purchase an ad for his paper in The Bruin. This is hardly the act of a conspirator, or of an 'underground' newspaper. This article is obviously slanted, so I would assume that the term 'underground' is meant to demean Canfield himself, and his aspirations, as being below those of The Bruin.
The Bruin's standpoint on the issue is positive. We acknowledge the paper, and eagerly await its arrival in a dark alley near you. You see criticism is very important for us, as we climb the ladder of omnipotence. Seriously though, we are not afraid of rivalry. Our circulation is over 2,500 and growing steadily.
This paragraph here is probably the greatest lapse of ethical responsibility to provide fair journalism that I have ever read in The Bruin. Obviously The Bruin's standpoint on the issue is positive. They have already tried to have Canfield suspended, and he is not allowed to gather money on school grounds, nor distribute his paper on school grounds. This, of course, does not disallow the distribution of The Gay Bear elsewhere, however, I must take offense to Keller's reference to 'its arrival in a dark alley near you.' This is a slanderous, pretentious, arrogant mockery of a student's ideas, dreams, industry, and aspirations. In his (not exceedingly funny) joke, Keller proves to us once again his arrogance and disrespect of others. And regarding the circulation of The Bruin, let's all keep in mind that this is not an actual paper with paid subscriptions. Of those 2,500 papers printed, how many do you think end up in the trash, on the floor, or in a urinal within 10 minutes of their release? The only way that The Bruin's circulation increases is if more taxpayer money is sent their way, or if they remove whatever remaining trace of content that's left and put more ads in its place.
It is not like The Bruin staff is a bunch of lemmings marching towards a cliff. Look at the wadded up Bruins you have stuffed in your closet from last year. We have come into maturity by leaps and bounds. We actually look like a professional paper. We had a vision, and we are accomplishing it.
Nobody ever suggested that the Bruin staff had anything in common with lemmings, so I have no idea where Keller came up with that. As for advances in quality and maturity, it should be noted that this year's Bruin staff is the least experienced ever. Most of the staff has only been on for 1 year, some of them have not had any experience previous to this year's, or even taken journalism, a supposed prerequisite to being on the Bruin staff. All of this 'maturity,' and the 'professional' appearance stem directly from the expensive layout software that was purchased for The Bruin this summer, and was not available to the staff of previous years, who had to design the paper using razors, chalkboards, and glue sticks. Also absent in previous years was the funding to print in full color, which dramatically reduces the amount of actual content or decent writing skills necessary to produce a 'professional' paper. In short, The Bruin does not have a vision, just an exorbitant budget.
We take pride in quality articles that give recognition to students, organizations and staff, as well as informing you about the important information in school and the community. That is what will separate us from the Anti-Bruin. Well, that and our photo poll, oh yeah!
I really have to question how this article recognizes a student in the positive way that The Bruin is so proud of. I also have to question why The Bruin feels this is important enough to pry into a student's life and attack his ideas. Furthermore, I have to question how this article is in any way informative, as it operates entirely off supposition, conjecture, rumor, hearsay and lies. If this is the kind of 'information' that The Bruin seeks to provide, then I suggest that they go into the tabloid market, and stop calling themselves a newspaper.