Constructive criticism wanted

Recently, we got a comment on our Web site regarding the last issue’s editorial. For those of you who didn’t read it, the editorial’s message was simple: that you should have your facts straight in order to help us keep our facts straight. This was answered with an insulting demand from a student demanding her money back, since part of our funding comes from the Student Activities budget. Constructive criticism is fine, since we learn from our mistakes. We don’t have a defined journalism program here yet, so most of our staff learns as they go along. If you want to complain and to point out a well-defined issue, please do so. But don’t just post a complaint with the equivalent of saying, “Why doesn’t someone pull their funding already?” I won’t say that we’re perfect, because that’s a load of crap. It is true that sometimes we find out after the fact that a story is flawed. Then again, we do try to keep your interests in mind. Yes, some of our columnists go off on a tangent, but that is because as columnists we specialize in something. Some of our regular writers focus on one set section because we were brought up in a “Write what you know” fashion. Meanwhile, it is also true that some of the student groups that we cover sometimes don’t have their own facts straight. An example can be found in our Oct. 23, 2007 issue. We covered a speech that Dick Durbin gave in the Alumni Hall, the one that the Students Against War (SAW) decided to protest because of his support for the proposed “Dream Act.” They came in with signs saying things like, “Durbin deploys troops while deporting families.” The fact that they neglected to mention was that Durbin is one of the more vocal people in Congress against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Dream Act, which is currently being debated in Congress, would give undocumented immigrants arriving as children legal status and the option of citizenship should they choose to take up the government’s offer of either a college education or military service. Later, SAW got in touch with us, saying that we didn’t properly cover the protest because we didn’t get their side of the story. They said that Durbin was part of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for the allocation of funds that supply our troops. Yet this was not the main message that observers gleaned from the protest signs. Even if contact were made before the story went to print, it is not our responsibility as journalists to promote SAW’s agenda. They should have made this issue clear during the protest, not after the fact. Anyway, I digress; back to the original topic of the complaint. One of the gripes, which weakened the writer’s credibility since it was only half true and they didn’t have their own facts straight, was that we get paid for “printing this drivel.” However, the money that we get from the Student Activities Fee goes into three categories: printing, equipment and training. The only people who get any pay out of money that we get from Student Activities are the few officers who are here to make sure that we come out with as professional a product as possible. Even then, the sum is rather small. Meanwhile, everyone outside of the officer positions does get paid, but that comes from a completely different fund. You’ll notice that we run advertisements. The revenue from those ads goes in a couple of different directions. It takes care of printing costs, because with inflation, sometimes our annual budget isn’t enough to cover this very large bill. Sometimes, it also goes to equipment and office supplies, and occasionally covers reimbursement for the office supplies that some staffers end up paying for out of their own pocket. Yes, everyone who is on staff working in some respect does get paid for their work but it tends to be a very small amount, usually enough for a couple of cheap meals. Sometimes we get paid just enough to effectively be reimbursed and nothing more. The section editors often don’t earn enough per semester to cover their textbook costs. Also, since the complaint about the fact that people “actually get paid for this drivel” was in regard to the editorial, it needs to be said that no one gets paid for editorials. So we actually get paid for something that no one gets paid for? That is news to me! The person who lodged the online complaint, in essence, is calling for our Student Activities budget to be taken away. Pulling Student Activities funds would effectively shut us down, since we barely make enough ad revenue to print less than half the current run, and that is only if we cancelled all reimbursements, stipends, pay, training and equipment costs combined.Say what you want, it’s a free country. Regardless of how hostile the previous paragraphs might’ve sounded, we are receptive to constructive criticism, especially since it helps us improve. But if you’re going to argue that we should be shut down because you don’t like what we write, and that we get paid for not keeping our facts in order, make sure that you have your own facts straight.