The board that oversees Colorado State University's student-run newspaper is still pondering what to do about editor J. David McSwane, who declined to apologize Wednesday night for his paper's use of the F-word.
Both the Fort Collins Coloradoan and the paper in question, The Rocky Mountain Collegian, contain extensive coverage. According to the Coloradoan, the Collegian has lost so much advertising from the controversy that it was published in black and white today instead of color. Apparently the student advertising representatives are afraid to call clients.
I was floored by one comment in the Coloradoan. The Collegian's student advertising director, Lenay Snyder, is quoted as saying the following: "Dave's job was not only to decide the editorial content of the paper, but also its financial well-being. He failed." Wow. Um. Yeah. Anyone who's taken an introductory journalism class should know that the editor is in charge of the news content and only the news content. The financial stability of the paper is the responsibility of the publisher, not the editor.
My latest take on this issue is that the editor should not be fired. The headline was clearly marked as an editorial. Editorials represent the opinion of the editorial board. And as long as you're not inciting violence, you can basically say anything. The editorial was not very well done, but it was protected free speech. The sole reason for the freedom of speech and press in this country is so Americans can criticize the government without fear of retribution.
I guess my biggest problem with this whole mess is that it brings to light how little most people know about the news. So few people follow it. And so few understand how it is produced. And so few understand why it's important. That all adds up to a society that doesn't understand the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech. And that is truly sad.
2 comments:
There is no question that the CSU editorial board was completely within its legal rights to publish the editorial. Depending on one's interpretation of language of the bylaws prohibiting profanity and vulgarity in opinion pieces, there may be a contractual law issue when it comes to whether McSwane can be fired. But the larger issue to me is whether the editorial is generating discussion about free speech as it was intended to do. I don't believe it is. The arguments are centering around the decency of the message itself. Because of that I believe the editorial failed in its stated goal. If that is the case, then the newspaper is enduring shock, outrage, and lost advertising revenue for little benefit other than perhaps a discussion about decency on teh opinion page. That's not the discussion we want to have if we want to protect the First Amendment.
Good take...Lynn-Clyde.
Post a Comment