Collegiate Times

I'm confused - is Mr. Stone upset with the fact that the CT doesn't print articles critical of the university (I'd like to point him to his own editorial page, which routinely presents issues with administrative policy on campus), or is he upset that more people with the information he wants to see printed don't talk to reporters? He seems to suggest that we each have some sort of civic obligation to criticize anything and everything with which we disagree, in no less public a forum than this newspaper. Newspapers can't print information they don't have, and reporters can't get information from people unwilling to give it to them. It works this way in the real world too, and it isn't anywhere close to the moral travesty Mr. Stone implies that it is. I think that most people are far more intelligent than to assume that the news printed in the CT, the NYT, or any other major newspaper is 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' let alone unbiased representations of that truth. Bias happens; everyone knows about it - move on.

Doesn't everyone already know that the news is shaped by the "establishment" and those who push for certain news coverage, such as University Relations, often set the tone for the news? This seems like a no-brainer.

Mr. Minor, your advice to simply "move on" regarding biased news reporting on campus is a dangerous attitude to adopt. I do agree that bias happens in every newspaper, however, that does not mean it is just. If our campus newspaper gets storied filtered to it through the Office of University Relations, that is a problem. And it is a problem that needs to be corrected. Also, you talk about how reporters can't write stories based off information that they don't have. Did you ever think that maybe there is something fundamentally wrong with the fact that certain university officials will either not disclose information or attempt to hide it? Just because something is unpopular or controversial or paints the university in a negative light doesn't mean it isn't worth printing. Last time I checked we still had the constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech and freedom of the press. This is a university which is supposed to be a beacon of free interchange of ideas. How can this purpose be served if we are only getting one side of the story. This is occuring. It is a problem. And it is not something we should just forget about and move on.

Well, your assertion of rights, for one thing, is inherently incorrect. Read the Bill of Rights - it says 'Congress shall make no law' prohibiting free expression, nor shall Congress interfere with the freedom of the press. Note also that not a single legal document implies that individuals are REQUIRED in any way to speak out against anything they find appalling. The burden here is on reporters to get more information - but keep in mind that, since the CT is an institution funded in part by Virginia Tech, the administration has a vested interest in seeing 'institution-appropriate' stories being published. If the CT were an independent newspaper, it would be able to print whatever it wanted. But it isn't, so it can't - just like writers for other major newspapers can't claim a 'right' to have their columns printed if the content of those columns disagrees with the interest of the board of trustees of that paper. The 'fourth estate' isn't nearly as glorious as you seem to want it to be - it's a business enterprise, just like pretty much everything else.

I find it amusing that Kyle's entire argument is based on "what" something is, rather then how something "ought" to be. To simplify, Kyle's argument is; things are f'ed up, but don't worry about it becaues there's nothing you can do. I hope this isn't an adequate description of what Virginia Tech is trying to impart on it's students as it "Invents the Future".

Your assertion has merit, John, but my hope is that people seek the truth for themselves anyway. Keep in mind that the CT is not the only way for students to get news about Virginia Tech - but it's important to realize also that it is every bit as much a mouthpiece of the administration as the vt webpage. There are plusses and minuses to funding the CT with university dollars - on the up side, you get to read it for free. On the down side, you introduce it to a degree of censorship. My point, however, has less to do with a conception of 'is/ought' and more to do with a realization of personal responsibility. The ultimate responsibility for finding the truth falls with the individual - you can't claim that you 'didn't know the real story' just because the CT didn't report it. You have to be your OWN investigative journalist, and that involves using multiple sources - newspapers, blogs, interviews, and the like. The reality of the situation may well not be optimal, but it really SHOULDN'T be the responsibility of newspapers to 'root out the truth.' The responsibility of newspapers is to earn money, so that its sharholders will benefit and so the money will be reinvested. That can be aided by truthful reporting, but it can also be directly aided by institutionalized bias (ie, hanging on to your current client base). I don't find it particularly outrageous that newspapers, CT included, don't always print the truth in its purest form.

First, the CT is not funded by the university. Second, there are no competing papers or blogs regarding local events. The blogs that do exist, are meaningless trite by students with no real knowledge of what is going on. Kyle, you've missed the point. The question is understanding the problems, then proposing solutions. That's how you "Invent the Future".

"Invent the future" is a marketing campaign, not the way of life you think it is. I mean, if you want to make your life goal inventing the future, that's your business and it's perfectly ok - I, personally, find the phrase to be trite and nearly meaningless. It troubles me that you seem to think that the CT is somehow entitled to more credibility than bloggers simply because you don't consider the CT's articles to be 'trite.' How do you know the bloggers don't know what's going on? The majority of bloggers don't write about stuff with which they have no knowledge - it's really tough to muse on things that don't affect you. But all of this is really beside the point - at the end of the day, the CT prints pretty much whatever it wants; the REAL question here is whether or not university employees ought to have some kind of moral requirement to disclose their 'true feelings' to newspaper staff - I would argue that this is not the case. It's a question of the public's 'right to know' (which, in this case, doesn't actually exist) pitted against an individual's 'right to privacy' (which, in my opinion, also doesn't legally exist). I think it dangerous to assert that people aren't fulfilling their duty to their peers by withholding negative opinions, because to do so would be to assert that the newspapers need to act as chroniclers of both actions and thoughts, even opposed to the will of the thinker. At the end of the day, it is my opinion that the public can't claim a right to know much of anything, at least not from individuals. Governmental disclosure is a different matter (because the public ought to function as an oversight committe in that case).

Kyle. 1.) Name some blogs that cover local events (such as Virginia Tech) that provide meaningful information. 2.) The question is, that the people have no ability to control their future, because if employees speak out it hurts their career. To accept a paycheck is to accept a moral dillemma. The end result is that the media perform the role of propaganda that is very effective for governments, corporations, and universities. That is a very scary situation, and to defend it is intellectual and ethical suicide for a democracy. 3.) "Invent(ing) the future" is merely a way to reclaim the language of the university, to hold them accountable so that their actions actually follow what they preach.

You are missing the point, John. You seem to take the approach that individuals ought to be absolved of responsibility to investigate for themselves by the fact that we have media outlets. The fact that few, if any, such blogs exist doesn't mean that they CAN'T exist. To address point 2, accepting a paycheck is a moral dilemma only insofar as that employees voluntarily do so. Any of my professors would prove wholly competent to work at McDonald's, I'm sure, but none want to do so - they would be equally competent to work at other universities, but choose not to do so. Keep in mind also that it generally behooves people to be judicious with which battles they choose to fight. I can yell at my mother until I am blue in the face because I want to color my hair green - but this perhaps jeopardizes my standing to ask for more money when I need it. This is not to say that people should just keep their mouths shut; I intend to claim that, if something the administration did was really so appalling, that critics would come out of the woodwork. Not every piece of criticism is important, and you certainly cannot claim an entitlement to hear every criticism that anyone else has.

Kyle. 1) No blogs exist cause they would have nothing else to contribute that hasn't been already done in the CT. This is due to a lack of info about how the university functions. If you wanna prove me wrong, then point to me a local blog with good quality insight on local news. 2.) I'm not going to respond to someone who advocates that professors should work at McDonalds rather then reform their university. 3.) Please argue based on facts and not hypotheticals.

John, the whole argument is predicated necessarily on hypotheticals - what is, versus what ought to be. Since clearly what is happens to not coincide with what you feel ought to be, we have to deal specifically with hypotheticals. To respond to point 1, if there isn't anything left to report, then why do we have an argument at all? If the CT is the comprehensive news source for the university community, and if no individually-led investigations could possibly turn up any information the CT hasn't already printed, then there isn't anything else to talk about - we are left with the conclusion that the CT prints all information. To respond to point 2, I never advocated that professors SHOULD work at McDonald's - merely that one's career selection is based upon a number of factors. Think of it this way - you don't work at Wal-mart if you disagree with Wal-mart's policies, and you don't work for the government if you disagree with the government's policies. Your freedom of expression isn't hampered by your selection of profession, but it is tempered (voluntarily) by your desire to be as successful in your field as possible. It's an inherent risk you run every time you select a job. Professors, I think, WOULD reform the university - if the administration were acting in a way such that reform were absolutely necessary. My point was that it isn't incumbent upon any individual to necessarily rise up every time someone offends them.

John, give up. There's no point in arguing against someone who has mastered the art of circular knowledge. Kyle, you should work for the Office of University Relations, although you might have to improve your writing skills.

What is 'circular knowledge?' I presume you mean 'circular argument,' but I'm not sure from whence you are drawing such a conclusion. I don't claim to be a great writer - or even a very good one. Fortunately, this is a public forum. I find it odd that, in response to a column which insists that the dialogue is not open enough, someone seeks to come here to stifle further dialogue. . .