Hi all,
As a student-produced newspaper, obviously campus activities and news is important to us. We, reporters and editors alike, think it is vital to let our fellow students what is going on around campus. We take that job very seriously. We try to cover where your money is going, who is leading you, any changes to academic or student life and anything else we think you would want to know.
But there is a second responsibility we feel. We think we owe it to our community readers to cover Kirksville life and goings on. Crime, City Council, new businesses, and recognized individuals throughout Adair County. We want to cover all of this for you, our non-Truman readers.
So how do we balance between the two?
We don’t want to favor one or the other. Yes, we are first and foremost Truman students. But I hear from the community. There are many Northeast Missourians who tell me they read US first. We listen when we hear things like that. So we do our best to balance.
On Monday nights, myself, Managing Editor Jack Nicholl, News Editor Andrea Hewitt, Assistant News Editor Dan Warner and Design Chief Sarah Schneider meet to talk about the layout of the news section for that week’s edition. One of the things we take into consideration is balancing news front with community and campus issues. We think about what YOU, the readers, whether students or residents, will want to know about. And we try to give you the best of both worlds.
So, if you don’t agree with the way we prioritize news, please let us know. We do our best to give you the most important news right away. We do our best to balance. We’ll keep doing our best.
Thanks, and keep reading.
Brenna
October 8, 2010 at 12:06 pm |
this comment isn’t in regard to editorial policy in the newspaper itself, but in regard to the choice to include a supplement printed by Humanlife Alliance in the latest edition of the Index. as a professor, I try very hard to present both sides (or ever how many sides there are) to an issue. It seems fair to me that students be presented with all angles of a topic, especially one as controversial, heated, and narrowly debated as abortion. For you to include this supplement, simply because this organization paid to have it placed there, seems very naive to me, and also somewhat devious. the supplement is a very glossy, attractive, seemingly informative, but in fact extremely biased presentation that’s anti-abortion. It makes no effort to present more than one perspective. it marshalls evidence to back up only what this organization advocates. Granted this is the way things are in the business world, where whoever pays gets their voice heard, but isn’t Truman supposed to be something different? Aren’t we supposed to be about fair and even treatment of topics? you might argue that you don’t have to abide by that rule since you’re a newspaper that depends on ad money rather than a professor who has the luxury of teaching without having to worry about where the money’s coming from. my response to that would be: when was it ever fair that those who pay get to be heard most?
October 8, 2010 at 7:13 pm |
More on the comments above. the anti-abortion supplement in the Index yesterday was intellectually dishonest. Notice the headings: they talked about social justice in the supplement, to grab attention. These and similar phrases are usually associated with liberal ideas and causes, but instead, Humanlife Alliance is clearly a conservative organization supporting a very conservative approach to this debate [I went to their website - there's no question there of their ideological position]. Additionally, the Index allowed this supplement with no explanation in the Index itself. It was simply presented as just another ad. Just another ad – so what, no big deal, right? But it IS a big deal. It’s a very big deal. You’ve passed off this supplement as if it’s just another thing for students to read, but in fact it’s a biased and in places outrageously one-sided attempt to persuade readers that abortion is so totally and irrevocably wrong that no rational, moral person could possibly find anything at all right or good about it.
the editor’s response to my initial email, that you’d run ads from any organization that paid for them, is revealing. What if the Nazi Party wanted to submit a supplement, and paid you adequately? Would you allow hate speech in a supplement? You may argue that this supplement opposing abortion doesn’t constitute hate speech. Maybe, maybe not. It’s pretty darned close. I’ve seen plenty of writing down through the years, in print, on both sides of the abortion issue. And I can say without reservation that this supplement is far gone compared to other anti-abortion pamphlets, websites, etc. that I’ve read.
I really have trouble remaining confident in the editorial and journalistic integrity of the Index if decisions to run such controversial and problematic supplements come down to ‘hey it was paid for, and hey, we’d run supplements by pro-life people if they paid up’. God help us all.
I hope at the very least that there is debate among editors of the Index about the wisdom of having allowed this supplement. Please tell me that you aren’t just passing on this one. This goes against the grain of so much that I live by as a professor at Truman. It is so antithetical to what we’re trying to a culture of reasoned debate that we’re trying to sustain at this university, against enormous pressures from society and the mainstream media to the contrary.
October 8, 2010 at 7:16 pm |
correction to the last statement in previous reply/comment: This supplement is so antithetical to what we’re trying to sustain here at Truman, a culture of reasoned debate, and sustaining it against enormous pressures from society and the mainstream media.
October 9, 2010 at 2:53 pm |
Mr. Ashcraft,
You say the advertisement is an “extremely biased presentation” that “makes no effort to present more than one perspective.” I’d like to ask what your definition of advertising is, if it’s not that.
Ads that run anywhere (in newspapers, on TV or the radio, etc.) are exactly that: Completely biased pieces that present an opinion of the entity that paid for it. McDonald’s has the best fries. X candidate is the best, and Y candidate is unfit for office. Reebok shoes make you run faster.
I’d hope a Truman professor would have enough common sense to understand that advertising isn’t required, in ANY form of media, to be vetted for an opposing point of view. If it was, no one would advertise.
I guarantee that if the Index tackles abortion in a story, it will hound out both sides of the argument and do its best to present them in equal lights.
You say: “When was it ever fair that those who pay get to be heard most?” Sorry, but if I want to take out a 30-second ad during the Super Bowl, no one’s going to let me even though I don’t have money. What I CAN do, however, is write letters to editors, join causes that I support and make my voice heard by other means.
But the absolute bottom line in this particular situation is that you’re calling out the Index here because you support a viewpoint other than the one that was printed in the advertisement. I have no doubt that if the paper had included a pro-choice supplement or run a pro-choice ad (which it has in the past, by the way), you wouldn’t be making a peep.
So if you have a problem with a pro-life supplement, please feel free to attack those pro-life ideas in a letter to the editor. And if you have a problem with what the Index does, definitely let them know. But just because you’re mad about an opposing viewpoint doesn’t mean you should be whining about the newspaper making an even-handed allowance of an organization to purchase advertising space to support its cause, which everyone has equal opportunity to do, within guidelines of vulgarity and hate speech.
Someone who is on the pro-life side of the debate would be equally upset if the Index denied them the ad space. Which is a good indicator that running it was fair.
October 10, 2010 at 8:26 pm |
I completely agree with Nate on this one. I see nothing wrong with a newspaper running a pro-life advertisement. It’s advertising. Of course it’s biased.
The only thing wrong would be if the Index would accept paid advertising from pro-life groups but reject it from pro-choice groups, which I’m sure the Index would not do.
Nate says in his finally paragraph that “Someone who is on the pro-life side of the debate would be equally upset if the Index denied them the ad space.” He’s absolutely correct. In fact, this happened. College newspapers at UW-Oshkosh and UW-Stevens Point chose not to run a pro-life ad, and many pro-lifers blasted them for censorship.
Political/advocacy ads are a revenue staple for newspapers and television. How about all these campaign ads that I’m seeing everyday on TV now? Are they not biased? According to Mr. Ashcraft, advertising should not be accepted if it “makes no effort to present more than one perspective.” Um, sure, ya I don’t think I’ve ever heard a TV say, “Vote for me, but if you don’t it’s OK, because here is what’s so great about my opponent.” No, instead it’s “Here’s X, Y and Z about why I’m so great and X, Y and Z about why my opponent is terrible.” And some of that information is usually based in truth, but often, the truth is stretched — like most advertising. In fact, as I’m writing this, I just saw a political ad for Illinois candidate for governor Pat Quinn, blasting his opponent Bill Brady, calling him “wrong and reckless.” I’m pretty sure there was a fair bit of bias in that ad. Shame on NBC for running it! Also, shame on the United States Postal Service for allowing all these political/advocacy pamphlets I keep getting in the mail!
Mr. Ashcraft, I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but during last year’s Super Bowl, CBS ran a pro-life advertisement from pro-life group called Focus on the Family. It, of course, was a point of controversy with a lot of pro-choice individuals. But get this. The New York Times — widely accepted as a left-leaning newspaper, at least on its editorial pages — wrote an editorial defending CBS and its choice to run the advertisement. The Times wrote, “Would-be censors are on the wrong track. Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about.”
The Times went on to say, “CBS was right to change its policy of rejecting paid advocacy commercials from groups other than political candidates.”
Now I’m not saying The Times is absolutely correct on everything it argues. However, I take much more stock in the Times’ opinion on this matter than a philosophy and religion professor who clearly has no understanding of how advertising in the media operates.
If you have a problem with the advertisement, Mr. Ashcraft, then it should be with HumanLife Alliance, not the Index.
October 10, 2010 at 9:24 pm |
One other thing I’d like to point out, Mr. Ashcraft. As a former Truman student, I can tell you that I’m almost positive I received at least one extremely biased pro-life pamphlet from some Bible beater in each of my four years at Truman. Oh, but how can this be?! Shame on Barbara Dixon and Darrell Krueger for allowing such information to be distributed!
According to Mr. Ashcraft, Truman is supposed to be “a culture of reasoned debate.” Is it not then, because Dixon and Krueger allowed such information to be distributed?
No, I think Truman is in fact a culture of reasoned debate. Dixon and Krueger realized that, and as presidents of a public university, chose not to censor pro-life voices. Nor should the Index. Truman, as an institution, is supportive of the right to express opinions — stopping short of such ludicrous things as hate speech. In fact, in the University’s student conduct code, it says in section 7.7 that the University does not support “Any act that deliberately interferes with the academic freedom or the freedom of speech of any member or guest of the University community.”
I support the University’s — and the Index’s — anti-censorship appraoch. I’d rather deal with some biased advertising than have some power at be determine which voices get heard and which don’t. If you think otherwise, Mr. Ashcraft, then your problem stretches much farther than the Index. It stretches to Truman State University as a whole it seems, and you should quit your job. You wouldn’t want to be a part of something that allows pro-life pamphlets — which apparently are antithetical to a culture of reasoned debate.
October 10, 2010 at 9:52 pm |
@Mr. Ashcraft:
Boom. Roasted.
October 11, 2010 at 12:14 pm |
would Nate, BT, and Joe like to identify themselves? Come by my office, or we’ll meet at a neutral location if you feel like my office is too much ‘my’ territory, and let’s talk it out so that I know who you are. I’m willing to be roasted if I can see the face of the person roasting me. Otherwise it’s just cowardice talking here.
October 11, 2010 at 4:12 pm |
Sorry Mr. Ashcraft, I don’t live in Kirksville anymore. But here’s to hoping this thread showcasing your ridiculousness one day becomes the top item in a Google search of your name.
Have fun trying to nonsensically bully a college newspaper because it ran an ad that doesn’t agree with your political beliefs, but I think I’ll get on with my life.
I’ll be looking for a story in the Index about your resignation from Truman, since the University doesn’t fit your ideal of “a culture of reasoned debate” (a.k.a. not allowing pro-life pamphlets).
October 11, 2010 at 6:53 pm |
BT – you still didn’t identify yourself.
Nate says: “But the absolute bottom line in this particular situation is that you’re calling out the Index here because you support a viewpoint other than the one that was printed in the advertisement.”
actually I’m not pro-life. I have real problems with abortion. You assumed you understood my position with no real evidence.
October 11, 2010 at 6:55 pm |
make that “I’m not pro-choice.” I’m pro-life. And I DO have real problems with abortion
October 11, 2010 at 7:03 pm |
Nate Becker and Joe Barker, you aren’t listed as students at Truman. Are you actually part of the Truman community? I thought I was communicating with people who were still here, people whom I could sit down and talk to face to face. BT admits they aren’t here anymore, but it looks like Nate and Joe aren’t either. If there’s no chance of reconciling with any of you in person, I’m not wasting anymore time here. Becker and Barker, if you are current students at Truman, I’d like to apologize to you in person for saying offensive things the other day. BT – forget it. You aren’t here, it’s clear you’d prefer to take potshots at me from a distance. Good bye
November 16, 2010 at 9:18 pm |
Regardless of the views of Nate, Joe, or BT, it is clear from my experience, Prof. Ashcraft’s letter, and recent media that these ads ARE controversial and do elicit both positive and negative reactions from the Truman community (though most of the ones I’ve heard have been negative).
The difference between a Christian activist handing out pamphlets on campus and a college newspaper is that we know the religious or even political stance of the guy giving out the Bible verses, while a newspaper is supposed to be unbiased. Unfortunately, the average reader won’t see a highly conservative insert without assuming a connection of those political or religious views with the newspaper’s views. And that’s why Prof. Ashcraft and others’ concern with the ad is only natural and should definitely be taken into consideration at editorial and ad meetings because readers’ views DO matter. And the perception of a campus newspaper that is supposed to be trusted, objective, and factual ALSO matters.
See the link from the Student Press Law Center below to look at the problems other university newspapers have faced with running anti-abortion (and pro-choice) ads. Not only has it become a controversial issue for readers, some newspapers’ ad space had turned into forums for competing organizations’ abortion debates. Some newspapers intelligently decided to address the ad issue in their editorial column before continuing to run–or not run–the ads.
http://www.splc.org/news/report_detail.asp?id=1532&edition=51
Draw your own conclusions about running these ads, but, please, do your research first and don’t blow off readers’ concerns as unintellectual or grounds for resignation.
November 16, 2010 at 10:32 pm |
So, MR: What, then, about the readers whose opinions would be negative about the paper because of censorship if it chose to not run the ads? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
I never said the ads weren’t controversial, and I DID draw my own conclusions about running them, thanks. Perhaps you should read over your commentary for substance rather than just words before you hit send.
All advertising, as long as it’s not explicit or hate speech (or very few other exceptions), deserves to run if it is paid for.