Bizarre editorial from the Northwestern student newspaper

Sorry you haven't been smart enough to take advantage of the best bull market in 35 years, Snowflake. I sure have.

 

I’m doing just fine and will be able to retire and a nice age where I can still enjoy myself. You are still full of shit.

My question, why were you too stupid as to not make money in the years preceding Trump when everyone else was?

 

This is not the place for this discussion. Take it to another thread. It gets really tiring having all you fucking Libtard Snowflakes hijack every thread and turn it into something to do with politics. Your candidate lost. Get the Fuck over it.

 

Still full of shit.

 

Tell that dumb bastard to quit following me around and yapping at me like a crybaby and I'll be happy to. I sure as hell don't take politics to any thread other than politics.

 

um

 

↑
...Excuse me? You wanna take this further? [/QUOTE]

Congratulations: you've made the student journos look like the mature ones.

 

I worked at the Daily Northwestern for 4 years prior to graduating this past spring.

I know I'm late to this discussion, but I wanted to add a few things. First off, to repeat a few important points already made: 1) Northwestern is a private school, which complicates the publicness of the protest; 2) the Daily is an independent publication, financially and editorially. There is no faculty advisor. There are 2 adult employees and a board of directors made up of alumni, but they exclusively concern themselves with the financial side of things.

With that said, I'm extremely disappointed in the newspaper. I know personally many of those in charge and I am amazed and ashamed that they stooped this low. Truth be told, the Daily has been trending towards the wrong side of the [reporting on society vs. making society better] journalism ideology for a while. Years ago, we stopped including the names and pictures of those arrested in the police blotter because doing so could "perpetuate racial stereotypes." While racial stereotypes are problematic, certainly, I don't believe this and the rest of society's many problems are the Daily's responsibility to fix. As the editor-in-chief of summer 2017, I fought hard against this and other policies to little avail.

But I must say, this specific incident was less of a declaration of these journalists' true beliefs and more of an attempt at self-preservation. Northwestern has a extremely liberal campus dominated by a radical vocal minority that is vehemently intolerant of any other centrist or conservative viewpoints. The Daily has had a problem for years when conservative/moderate students have tried to join and write as columnists; the Daily would incur tremendous accusations of harboring their "racist"/"sexist"/"classist"/etc viewpoints by publishing their columns. Many of the minority activist groups on campus would only talk to a reporter attempting to cover an event/protest/etc they were holding if the reporter was of the same minority group. Although I'm no longer on campus, I believe this hit a breaking point this past week, with students refusing to speak to Daily reporters left and right, even for innocuous stories, because of the Daily's coverage of the Sessions speech (not just for the via-the-directory quote-gathering efforts and posted-on-Twitter photos, but also for "legitimizing racism" by giving equal weight in the coverage to Session's speech AND the protest, rather than solely the protest). This (stupid) apology was an attempt to appease the radical left portion of the student body so that the Daily could continue to provide thorough coverage of all campus happenings.

TLDR: Everyone is in the wrong. It's a mess.

Anyways, happy to answer any more questions anyone has.

 

Nice post, Ben. Good explanation of what's going on there. In a perfect world, even if campus is excesively liberal, what you do is cover everything that deserves to be covered, try to interview everybody that needs to be interviewed and ignore the noise from outside. And guess what? If threats are made, if anybody on staff is attacked, you use the police over and over to protect/intervene/arrest. If the police won't help/arrest those making threats, well then that's another story. ... But once a news organization tries to "appease" noisemakers, it's not a real news organization. Sorry if I didn't explain myself effectively. My point is conservative/liberal/whatever, if something deserves to be covered, you cover it.
What if the Northwestern football team decided to boycott games because they don't want the national anthem played. You cover that and you get reaction. And if those you call for reaction feel triggered, too bad, they can say "no comment"

 

Thanks for the insight. It's very helpful.

 

Well said.