September 28th, 2002
|05:22 pm - got respect?|
just sent in a letter to the editor, to TNH
about their editorial
"Apparently it is big news that college kids don't think beer is the most important thing in life. Apparently it's big news that we think environmental concerns are important enough on our campus to speak for themselves." Apparently you don't think your readers understand subtlety. Apparently you are willing to let your moral high horse block the spread of noteworthy information. All advertisements are designed to catch the attention of the lowest common denominator; that's the point. But to say this supports the idea that college students are seen as "mere 'beer drinkers'" is insulting to both college students and beer drinkers. Being intrigued by an obvious parody is far from having that be "the most important thing in life." Students, like anyone else, are whatever they want to be whether you approve or not, and saying someone drinks beer is hardly an insult. Furthermore, while "for a good percentage of [your] readership, who are under 21, drinking beer is illegal," if this study is correct that beer is better to drink than milk (available conveniently in all the dining halls), perhaps this law should be rethought. And it certainly shouldn't be the basis of an editorial decision.
P.S. I would hardly call something linked to problems from obesity to osteoporosis an "environmental concern."
let's see if i get printed this time. i still dont know why they didnt print my letter last year, no one was in the office whenever i called
np: knife in the water - - - party for the people of the open wound
|Date:||September 28th, 2002 09:19 pm (UTC)|| |
From the editorial:
"We think it's unfortunate that more student newspapers don't make the decision not to run the ad as well."
A while back- was it last year?- some conservative decided to run an ad in dozens of student newspapers around the country; in which he enumerated all the reasons why, in his opinion, it's both wrong and racist for our government to make reparations to the descendants of slaves. Most of the student papers chose to print the ad, though many of them included an editorial rebuttal. A few chose not to print the ad, and were criticized around the country for it; a few people even lost their positions at those newspapers because of it.
So, the message was= it's wrong for student papers to refuse such an ad, even if they disagree with its message. Now we get a complaint about them not refusing an ad.
Also: although I love milk, and drink gallons of it (especially with chocolate added!), it doesn't seem too surprising that milk isn't very healthy. It's designed to meet the nutritional needs of growing calves, not humans.