What are your thoughts on the Special Election? Did Emily Sellers make the best decision i resigning, or should she have tried to change things by sticking it out? Will you vote? Do you think it's important, or just a waste of time?
As far as The Bookie corporation fiasco, with WSU prohibiting it's employees from advertising other booksellers, do you think that WSU should have the authority to do so? Does it infringe on any amendment rights?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
It's hard to say whether or not she did the right thing. Either way, I think a special election is the best way to ensure the Senators are serving the students (support Democracy!). It also gives the student government a chance to get out and interact with students.
I was reading through the blog, and I think it should be noted that the person with the most votes out of everyone is the person that resigns. I would think that would draw some major attention to the "contention" and "power struggle" issues that brought about that resignation. The students wanted Emily to serve more than anyone else.
Possible story for future VanCougar article??
I think it should be noted that less than 9 % of WSU Vancouver students asked for Emily Sellers to serve as a Senator this year, which is only slightly more than everyone else. In my opinion, the fact that she recieved more votes doesn't necessarily mean that she has any seniority in the body. It probably means she has more friends who cared enough to vote for her, in other words she might have been a better campaigner. All things considered, none of the Senators really ran much of a campaign last year, which probably tells us more about the Senate than one Senator's resignation. She isn't the first Senator to quit, and this isn't the first time the newspaper has lambasted the Senate.
I have to reply to the last post. Why do you feel we lambasted the senate? We simply reported that there would be a special election, and the reason why. Do you think that people would rather not know that there is going to be a special election, or even further...that the senate shouldn't be covered at all? Don't students have the right to know the senate's situations, or what they are doing? I think that covering the senate is essential, students have the right to know how their affairs are being handled, especially when it comes to S & A fees, don't you?
There is a not-so-subtle difference between 'lambasting' the senate and holding elected officials accountable.'
-Matt
I think Emily made a great sacrifice in resigning. She seemed to not be pleased with how the other three positions were being addressed by the current process. She forced the election by giving up her seat. I think she hoped to ensure the students would be able to vote for whom they deem is the best candidate, and not be stuck with whoever was put in place. The real tragedy in the situation is that the majority of the students on campus have no idea this event transpired and really don't care.
Thank You Emily for doing what you feel is the "Right Thing." I hope it gives you the lasting feeling of greatness when you look at yourself in mirror every morning.
When I was a kid, I used to beat the crap out of my brother in Monopoly. When he started to feel like he was losing, he would get frustrated and bail out. I tried to explain that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Just because he landed on Boardwalk and owed me a lot didn't mean I was never going to land on Park Place and have to fork some out for him. When the going got tough he gave up. He never thought it was fair that I owned all of the railroads. I told him capitalism isn't always fair. He missed the point. The same principle is true of politics. Sometimes people disagree about who makes their way into government and sometimes reality isn't what you think is fair. Trying to profile/label nominees before approving them is a little extensive for a student government, I think.
I find it interesting that the paper really wasn't too specific on what Seller's problem in the senate actually was. There is a quote from Pres. Watters that implies Emily's resignation was due to "conflict about who was to
be put on the Senate, the process,
and what rules apply (to Senate
nominations)." Was she losing in the senate's game of Monopoly? Is everything the senate does really so backward and wrong, or is that just the image of the senate through the editors' eyes? Do so few people actually participate in student government that most folks will believe whatever gets printed in the paper?
Yes, thank you Emily for your benevolence in sacrificing your own voice in the senate with the preconcieved notion of liberating the greater voice of the student body. Thank you for for leaving your spot open for others with opinions opposed to your own in the name of diversity. How very noble of you. I'm sure that's exactly what the founding fathers would have done for the sake of democracy.
I think she made a strong play. The senate has some serious issues, actually our whole student government does. Two terms by Casey, and to special elections. I'm surprised we've heard so little from the Vancougar on the ASWSUV happenings if there is so much conflict and dissention. Why is Emily's decision to resign from student government the first we've heard of problems in the student government this year, and how long have there been vacancies? Was this a sudden loss of 4 senators, or did somebody drop the ball and let things go to far without stepping up. In fact, what happened with the special election? Inquiring minds want to know.
I want to respond to the October 27th post. You said: "Is everything the senate does really so backward and wrong, or is that just the image of the senate through the editors' eyes? Do so few people actually participate in student government that most folks will believe whatever gets printed in the paper?"
I'd like to know how you feel I swayed the story. Did you talk to the writer, Abbi Smith, to find out how I edited it? I think you would be surprised to learn that I only made grammatical and/or punctuational changes.
Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that there was a special election, and it was caused by Emily Sellers leaving. We didn't report the specific nature of the contention in the senate, because at that time, we didn't have the necessary info. Funny thing about this, ANONYMOUS, your critique is based in faulty logic. Some senators simply won't respond to us. Call it what you will, that they think we're biased, or that we're only going to print bad things (which is ridiculous, we print what's there)but don't you think that if the senators were really concerned about the "real story" getting out, that they would at least try to tell it? Even outside of the paper? How about a letter to the editor? I have never refused to print a letter yet.
In addition, get some more facts before you start pointing fingers. We've covered ASWSUV many times this year with no negative connotation. The senate vacancies din't come up because they weren't an issue until now, and I was hoping to save ASWSUV some embarrasment...by giving them time to fill the seats. Problem is, some of the senators currently filling positions are making it mighty difficult for anyone who disagrees with them to voice their own opinion, let alone fill a position.
If you really want the whole story, why not ask why certain senators refuse to take responsibility for their actions by responding to the paper? We print their quotes from recording...so we can't sway those. I have the sneaking suspicion that the reason why these people won't speak up (kudos to Casey Watters for having the courage to do so) is that they want to hide their true behavior. As long as it's shrouded, they can continue with what they are/have been doing.
To the October 29th post: If you read above, than you know why we didn't print on the dissention: we have to pry open the doors to even get a glimpse at what's going on. Not to mention the fact that I'm sure Emily Sellers didn't want to comment until she was out of their reach. With certain senators...I'd want to get away to. If you want more info, talk to the senators and I. Then, you can get the true story for yourself, if you question the article. Sad fact is...there's little to no transparency in the senate right now...otherwise they would comment. Again, if the article was so false, why didn't they clarify in the Letters to the Editor section? I'm personal friends with Casey Watters...he know I print every Letter to the Editor I get.
Lastly, I would urge each and everyone of you to look into everything you can to get the full story. Don't take our word for it...I'm glad you're reading critically...get involved in ASWSUV and make a difference. I think they need it.
"kudos to Casey Watters for having the courage to do so"
My god! Rent a room if you're going to slobber over that guy any more. It has become apparent he is your buddy, since you have failed to see where the paper is lacking in presenting "the facts". You leave us to go knock on the senate's door and ask questions? What is the purpose of the paper then, you are becoming as useless as Casey, in all his Vancougar endowed glory. Frankly Casey lacks any real leadership skill, and we are starting to suffer from his failure to step up and be a leader. It seems as though we may have our own little "W" over here, ready to grin for the press, but unwilling to do his job, which I might add our senate voices have now allowed him to be overpaid for. Don't let your unwillingness to violate your "personal friends" trust keep you from laying out the whole story and becoming a reporter, not just a whore.
I would like to rebut the editor's comments on my remarks made on the 27th. To be clear, I never stated that the story was swayed. What I did ask implied that perhaps the Vancougar's point of view isn't the only half of the story. Abbi Smith isn't a bad writer, and in fact is a very likable person. She also wasn't the only one who writes and has written about the senate.
Also, I don't know why members of the senate seem to systematically hinder your patriotic march to transparency in student government. I don't know why they won't answer your questions. They always seem to answer mine. Maybe they've just come to expect hostility and controversy from the local armchair politicians. Who knows, maybe you just don't ask nicely. If I recall, some senators have sent letters to the Vancougar, some of which hung in your window until recently. The senate seems fairly open and interested in anyone who wants to apply themselves. I don't see how you or anyone else can dispute that.
I also never stated that I thought the vacancies were a new development. I've known that there was a spot in the senate that has practically been mine for the asking since the start of the semester. Unfortunately, I can't afford to divert much time to the effort given my current financial situation. (Nothing to say about the amendments that require about 400+ students to vote yes before they pass? Or is that just not something the Vancougar's wants to advertise?) You and I both know that WSU Vancouver is hard-pressed to turn out 400 voting students, much less 400 students who vote in affirmation. Isn't a little publicity in order?
It was so very generous of you to "save ASWSUV some embarrasment". Clearly you are the one who sits high on the media throne and casts his graces on whomever he pleases. (Or curses whomever crosses him re: the Cascaddan fiasco--who wants to pick up the college newspaper and catch a front page article about getting fired from their job? Don't give us crap about you 'holding public officials accountable'. If he screwed up, he screwed up and he's going to move on.)
I could go on, but it almost seems pointless. Write your paper and fill the opinions section with whatever you deem fit. Don't worry about what speaks to the audience. We'll still go on reading. After all, those are our funds that produce the paper. I guess we'd better try and get our money's worth.
Yes,
Finally some actual discussion. Both of you took issue with my saying that I tried to save ASWSUV some ebrassment. Let me explain...
It is clear that both of you have no clue as to how hard it is to run a student organization on a campus like this, even if you have experience. To report on senate vacancies in the beginning weeks of the semester when the paper comes out every two weeks would be like reporting on sports in the same way. It takes a little while to get the ball rolling at the beginning of the school year, and I was betting (and hoping) that the vacancies would be filled. We covered it as soon as it was obvious that it would become a major issue. Again, remember that we come out every two weeks, not on a daily basis.
Furthermore, even though Casey and I are friends (we don't talk too much in spite of this, we've simply had a few classes together) we understand eachother's job. He does what he thinks is best, and I do the same. You might want to ask him if he likes all this press about the senate before assuming he does... Casey is far from a VanCougar lackey. Does your ignorance come from a refusal to get the story for yourself, considering you don't trust the paper?
If you feel that you should be able to rely on any paper in this day and age to get truth... you're dead wrong. Look back 100 years, and they would've told you the same thing. We report the truth the best we can, but the funny thing is the misconceived notions about truth. No matter what the truth is, people have opinions on it. It's the indoctrination and personal belief systems that you bring into the situation that inform your ideas. Some people are able to get around that better than others.
In addition, I can't help but see how personally you take these matters, and how skewed your tautological arguments are. In the same paragraph, you say that the senators always answer your questions, and that you don't know why they don't answer mine. Hello...ANONYMOUS (isn't that funny? You hide behind the same veil as the senators you speak with)we're a newspaper. Talking with someone like you (who has obvious close ties) is different than splattering what you say over a thousand copies for everyone to read. That's transparency...check a journalism textbook...or a PoliSci text.
The letters I took down were old, nothing more to it. I was hoping for some more.
For both of you, I offer a sincere proposition. Write for the paper. It's interesting that all this criticism comes from someone who cares enough to complain, but not to do anything about it, (speaking of armchair politicians) Come work for the paper and change things. Be prepared to make an atttempt at getting the truth, without guarding the people you're close to however. I'll hold you to your accusations.
To close, I'd like to touch on the publicity issue about amendments. I'd publish it, if ASWSUV had it together enough (the senators are always willing to share, right?) to have a PR person who is able to give me the information. That position has been historically vacant. I think they just got someone, so maybe things will turn around. I've been speaking with a couple of senators recently (surprise surprise) about trying to get a section designed below the calendar specifically for ASWSUV events. Maybe that will help. Oh...and the thing about "filling the opinions pages?" You bet your own opinion that I will. Even if they do get thrown away. Better yet...how about writing an unanonymous letter to the editor? In a 1000 copies, we believe that people should be brave enough to be accountable for their opinions. It's different from the shelter of an anonymous post on the blog.
Brian is in a frustrating position, one I'm not sure some of the readers really realize or appreciate.
He could have ran a short story with no weighty quotes, solid facts or reliable information when the ASWSUV vacancies first arose, but in doing so, Brian would have received criticism for a "soft" story and not digging to get the story.
So he decided to wait and still received criticism. It's one of those 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' instances.
Not only that, but the newspaper only comes out every two weeks (duh). That means that whatever stories end up in the paper should have some substance and staying power; if Brian didn't think it was appropriate to throw a hasty story together as the news was still developing, that's his call. And if you ask me, it was the right one.
In working for such a small campus, Brian faces a lot of pressure when it comes to what's news and what isn't. He has to make decisions about what will end up on the front page and why and if there's something to the story. He obviously didn't think there was, so the story was pushed back. It wouldn't be the first time in the VanCougar's history that a story's been pushed back until all the facts are clear and the news emerges.
And regarding the senators speaking to The VanCougar, that's nothing new. They have a perception of The VanCougar and keep those in mind when speaking with reporters. Making an off-handed comment to their friends (who in turn post comments on this blog) is one thing; commenting to the campus-wide newspaper is a whole other issue. It's easy to say, 'they talk to ME about the happenings!' because they know you won't take their comments and put them in a newspaper read by everyone at WSUV (and any potential online readers).
And say what you will about his policies or actions since taking over as President - Casey Watters has always made himself available to members of The VanCougar staff. If nothing else, I agree with Brian in giving him kudos for that.
And to (one of) the anonymous poster(s) ... you said the VanCougar doesn't speak to its audience; how would you like to see The VC shift its focus to speak to the campus-wide audience? While I'm not around anymore, that's an argument I heard repeatedly with no real solutions suggested.
Matt Wastradowski
As a reporter for the VanCougar, I recently had to contact two senators regarding an issue introduced to the senate. One of the senators was very prompt and helpful in getting back to me and answering my questions. The other I have not heard back from. The issue was regarding two senators looking into whether S&A fees should be used to fund the honors college seminars. I fear that maybe one of the senators didn't talk to me because he would assume that I have a slant about wether or not this investigation was a good idea since Brian is a member of the honors college. However, I assure you that he in no way told me how to "approach" the story and (as with any story) I went in wanting to get the opinions of all sides involved. As a student, I was glad that the investigation was made--that the senate is ensuring that S & A fees were being spent correctly.
I don't have any agenda with the articles I report on. I hope that senators feel they can talk to me and that I will quote them accurately.
My only complaint about the ASWSUV right now is the use of "U" on signs, instead of "YOU." But that must be the copy editor in me. . .
--Renee Woodruff
First, let me address the left-leaning Editorial page. Just from reading the VC so far this year, I've noticed that Brian and Drew are catering to the readership; there WAS a 'conservative' columnist, but the new columnist said that readers were complaining about a male-dominated editorial page, so Brian and Drew, in that instance, were catering to the readership.
This was a problem going back to last year, when Brian and I were continually attacked for not opening up the Editorial page, when in fact, we were doing everything in our power to give the Opinion section some balance. In fact, we gladly ran a conservative columnist for the last six issues last year.
And more to the point about responding to readers, you have some great suggestions. I can't speak for Brian, but in my experience, we had to put out an issue that the whole campus would read, and there might not have been news-worthy events happening in certain majors.
And you haven't seen any WSU sports articles, because the VC only comes out twice a month; by the time an article comes out, certain events or games are wildly outdated. It's something we wrestled with last year, but in the end, we couldn't find a real timely solution.
I can't speak for Brian, but as someone who faced a lot of the same issues last year, I'm still interested in how our efforts paid off (or in this case, didn't).
In response to Publius_2000's posting:
You have an excellent ideas about making the newspaper "speak to its audience." I work for the paper, and while I can't speak for Brian, I know that the editorial staff always encourages students to get involved as writers at the paper. If you see things about the paper that you'd like to change, and you have ideas, perhaps you should apply for a job at the paper. And if you would like to see a conservative column in the paper, the best thing to do is always apply to be that columnist. I think that the anonymous November 4 poster made some great points about the difficulties that the VanCougar has had in publishing conservative columns. It's not because the editors are all leftists who hate those who sit on the right side of the aisle; rather, the issue's much more complex.
Post a Comment