The April 16 issue of The Collegian included the editorial “AS fails to promote elections,� which incorrectly stated: “AS pulled the remaining four ads that had not yet run.�
Due to an internal miscommunication in The Collegian office, the editorial staff understood that all Associated Students’ ads for the upcoming election had been canceled. The AS ads have not been canceled and following the removal of an election ad in the April 16 issue of The Collegian, AS has been offered a “make good,� or replacement ad for the ad that was supposed to run. The Collegian will continue to run the remaining ads that were purchased.
The Collegian regrets the error.
JD • Apr 19, 2007 at 8:42 pm
doe –
the collegian is a class. it’s job training. it’s curriculum. it’s not “an organization.” it’s not a frat or a club.
the AS is BS.
there’s a difference.
the collegian does not need to help the BS “benefit the students.” did the BS help the collegian benefit the students? no. the BS tried to eliminate funding for the collegian.
it’s BS.
is it a tragedy that the collegian editorial got something wrong? maybe. the collegian probably should do a preview on the elections. it probably will. the collegian should also cover the elections. it probably will.
but it’s not the collegian’s responsibility to convince students to get involved in BS. if it’s the opinion of the paper to promote BS because of whatever reasons, then fine. but it’s not mandatory.
if the BS wants coverage, then the BS needs to send out press releases like the rest of the civilized world.
again, not too long ago, the collegian actually took the BS elections seriously. the collegian did in-depth previews on each race, and LIKE A PROFESSIONAL NEWSPAPER WOULD, it endorsed candidates based on several interviews.
of course, the candidate who wasn’t endorsed by the collegian won, and coincidentally, under that person’s regime, the cogs were put in motion to put the screwgie on the collegian.
hmmm… the paper does the things any legitmate professional newspaper does — and adds legitimacy to the BS in the progress — and the effort is returned by percieved childish vengence.
the BS is a joke. it’s there to make the student experience better, but it’s become a resume inflator that only the smittcamp kids care about.
oh, and i think i might have a correction. the chief’s name was lin button, not lyn… i think, but i’m not sure. either way, you pronounce it lin. that’s all that matters.
like i said, this editorial flub won’t stop kirstie from receiving any accolades… even if she were to have a nervous breakdown mid-semester, quit in the middle of a special section and demand fewer responsibilities so she could go back to her pad and smoke tree with her calico cat.
not that she’d ever do anything like that. who would?
JD • Apr 20, 2007 at 3:42 am
doe –
the collegian is a class. it’s job training. it’s curriculum. it’s not “an organization.” it’s not a frat or a club.
the AS is BS.
there’s a difference.
the collegian does not need to help the BS “benefit the students.” did the BS help the collegian benefit the students? no. the BS tried to eliminate funding for the collegian.
it’s BS.
is it a tragedy that the collegian editorial got something wrong? maybe. the collegian probably should do a preview on the elections. it probably will. the collegian should also cover the elections. it probably will.
but it’s not the collegian’s responsibility to convince students to get involved in BS. if it’s the opinion of the paper to promote BS because of whatever reasons, then fine. but it’s not mandatory.
if the BS wants coverage, then the BS needs to send out press releases like the rest of the civilized world.
again, not too long ago, the collegian actually took the BS elections seriously. the collegian did in-depth previews on each race, and LIKE A PROFESSIONAL NEWSPAPER WOULD, it endorsed candidates based on several interviews.
of course, the candidate who wasn’t endorsed by the collegian won, and coincidentally, under that person’s regime, the cogs were put in motion to put the screwgie on the collegian.
hmmm… the paper does the things any legitmate professional newspaper does ”” and adds legitimacy to the BS in the progress ”” and the effort is returned by percieved childish vengence.
the BS is a joke. it’s there to make the student experience better, but it’s become a resume inflator that only the smittcamp kids care about.
oh, and i think i might have a correction. the chief’s name was lin button, not lyn… i think, but i’m not sure. either way, you pronounce it lin. that’s all that matters.
like i said, this editorial flub won’t stop kirstie from receiving any accolades… even if she were to have a nervous breakdown mid-semester, quit in the middle of a special section and demand fewer responsibilities so she could go back to her pad and smoke tree with her calico cat.
not that she’d ever do anything like that. who would?
John Doe • Apr 19, 2007 at 5:20 pm
After reading the original editorial about this issue as well as the recent correction on the newspapers behalf I feel that more needs to be done. It has come to my attention that the so called “terrific advertising staff” was led astray by some one in their own house. The ads in question were not even canceled by anyone that has to do with Associated Students.
As for the “great financial consequence to The Collegian,” well whose fault is that really? Also, it is the job of a newspaper to inform the people of things that could affect them. It would seem that political elections would be important enough for the newspaper to do some kind of story on; apparently The Collegian did not think so. For this editorial to have been published without checking the facts is unacceptable.
The real problem with this issue is not about the money but the fact that one important organization on campus was trashed on by another for no reason. Unfortunately that issue was left out by The Collegian and probably would never have come to light.
The true problem is that communication between these two organizations has to be worked on so that they truly benefit the students that they actually work for. If the two organizations that are meant to inform and make better changes for the students of this campus cannot seem to get a long, for whatever reason, then I feel unfortunate to be returning next semester.
John Doe • Apr 20, 2007 at 12:20 am
After reading the original editorial about this issue as well as the recent correction on the newspapers behalf I feel that more needs to be done. It has come to my attention that the so called “terrific advertising staff” was led astray by some one in their own house. The ads in question were not even canceled by anyone that has to do with Associated Students.
As for the “great financial consequence to The Collegian,” well whose fault is that really? Also, it is the job of a newspaper to inform the people of things that could affect them. It would seem that political elections would be important enough for the newspaper to do some kind of story on; apparently The Collegian did not think so. For this editorial to have been published without checking the facts is unacceptable.
The real problem with this issue is not about the money but the fact that one important organization on campus was trashed on by another for no reason. Unfortunately that issue was left out by The Collegian and probably would never have come to light.
The true problem is that communication between these two organizations has to be worked on so that they truly benefit the students that they actually work for. If the two organizations that are meant to inform and make better changes for the students of this campus cannot seem to get a long, for whatever reason, then I feel unfortunate to be returning next semester.
JD • Apr 18, 2007 at 4:50 pm
i shouldn’t laugh at this, because i’ve made my own mistakes, but it’s kind of funny. that’s what’s good about this profession is that it admits its mistakes and takes public responsibility for them.
i remember when a certain EIC wrote that hasty editorial ripping campus chief lyn button for failing to alert students of a rapist on campus. that editorial bashed the campus police for fostering a severed relationship with the collegian and said that every student on campus could have been raped and it would have been the campus police’s fault.
problem: the EIC was assuming certain information to be true and totally got it wrong — only further hurting the police/collegian relationship.
don’t worry, kirstie, that EIC went on to be MCJ:print student of the year.
JD • Apr 18, 2007 at 11:50 pm
i shouldn’t laugh at this, because i’ve made my own mistakes, but it’s kind of funny. that’s what’s good about this profession is that it admits its mistakes and takes public responsibility for them.
i remember when a certain EIC wrote that hasty editorial ripping campus chief lyn button for failing to alert students of a rapist on campus. that editorial bashed the campus police for fostering a severed relationship with the collegian and said that every student on campus could have been raped and it would have been the campus police’s fault.
problem: the EIC was assuming certain information to be true and totally got it wrong ”” only further hurting the police/collegian relationship.
don’t worry, kirstie, that EIC went on to be MCJ:print student of the year.