?

Log in

No account? Create an account
complication - here is where i live

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> <3

me!
contact info
writing/art journal
flickr
youtube
last.fm
social networking and potential boning
okcupid
myspace
facebook

October 2nd, 2002


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
04:33 pm - complication
so, the chief editor lady of TNH is in my essay class. you may recall my recent letter writing bashing them for censoring PETA's "got beer?" ads. the class workshopped one of her essays today, about her dad's alcoholism. so i guess that explains why she'd be so set against it. the question is-- do i sympathise adn let up, or prod her journalistic integrity to not let personal bias interfere with her work?
state: conflicted
np: Poe . live - Angry Johnny (v2)

(5 shots upside the head | en garde!)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:zombeer
Date:October 2nd, 2002 01:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
choke her rivers with your dead!!!!!!!!!!

or don't.
it's up to you.
[User Picture]
From:kingnixon
Date:October 2nd, 2002 02:31 pm (UTC)
(Link)
i dont know that she has any rivers. i'll take that under advisement tho
From:cptngoth
Date:October 2nd, 2002 07:23 pm (UTC)

Hrm

(Link)
I'm a huge believer in non-biased journalism. I hate the fact that newspapers and even TV have political agendas. Don't they have an obligation to tell me the facts, and only the facts? So yeah, I hate it when journalism takes sides. It's one thing if they had run the ad and she just wrote an editorial about how she didn't like it. But what they did wasn't right. So I say stick to your guns and follow through with it, because someone needs to tell them to step back and start viewing things objectively.
[User Picture]
From:kingnixon
Date:October 2nd, 2002 10:17 pm (UTC)

Re: Hrm

(Link)
why do they have an obligation to tell just the facts? i think if theyre upfront about it (which this is) they can go off on any side they like. she tells you they didnt take the ad, and says if you realy wanna see it you can go to their site. and besides, it's not an article, it's an ad. are htey obliged to take any ad offered to them? i could buy adspace and put in a fullpage picture of a clit, in that case
bear in mind i agree with you, but i am a firm believer in the value of devil's advocating
From:cptngoth
Date:October 3rd, 2002 12:14 am (UTC)

Re: Hrm

(Link)
First, let's use my favorite example: Presidential elections. Because EVERYONE in the media has a fucking political agenda, it's neigh impossible to get straight-up, honest info about a candidate. Let's say a democratic candidate is pro-life to the point where he has supported clinic bombing in the past. A newspaper could easily skew the facts and make him look like a saint who just values life, make him look completely neutral, or if they wanted, they could even paint him up to be pro-choice. I hate elections, because I have to dig through mountains of information, watch every debate I can, ask around, etc. because I feel I have an obligation to vote and I don't want to make an uninformed decision. THAT is why they have a fucking obligation to tell me the facts. Because their job is to inform me of what's going on, not how they fucking feel about what's going on. Why do they have editorials if they can editorialize throughout the rest of the paper?

Second, their reasons for not running that ad were paper-thin at best. If they don't want to be labeled as a party school, how is cutting a "got beer?" ad going to stop that? They could cut every mention, every HINT of alcohol out of everything on the campus. If people are still drinking, guess what? It's still a party school. They're trying to sugar-coat and ignore the problem rather than deal with it (not that I view it as being an actual problem). They're using this ad as a scapegoat. That's why I think you should continue with your letter and such.

And third, I FUCKING HATE PEOPLE WHO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE!!! Why does an argument or disagreement happen? Because each person has an opinion!!! It's one thing if you're trying to decide between two types of cereal or something and you're weighing pros and cons, but not in situations like this. You have your opinion, and you have it for a reason. That opinion was bred from your beliefs and emotions, that opinion is a part of you. When I enter an argument, I stand by my opinion. It doesn't mean I don't listen to the other person, and it doesn't mean I won't admit I'm wrong or change. But if the other person is presenting you with the other side of the story, why do you have to present yourself with it? To put it simply, all that "devil's advocate" stuff annoys the LIVING SHIT out of me.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com