The Flat Hat: Staff Editorial: Cheers and Jeers

Staff Editorial: Cheers and Jeers

25 April 2008 | By The Flat Hat, | The Flat Hat » opinions

So ends another year at the College. As always, this last day brings bell-ringing and Blowout — and, for us, cheers and jeers.

We hope you’ll join us in reflecting on some of the biggest campus events of the school year.

Cheers to the business and law schools for rising in national rankings. Jeers to U.S. News & World Report for a flawed rankings system that hates on public schools. No public undergraduate program made it into last year’s top 20.

Cheers to the most diverse admitted class ever. Jeers to a stagnant acceptance rate.

Cheers to the Gateway Program. Jeers to its insufficient funding.

Cheers to former College President Gene Nichol for his involvement in campus life. Jeers to Nichol for bungling his duties as president and for leaving the school in a lurch.

Cheers to the BOV for coming to campus to explain a tough but ultimately right decision. Jeers to Nichol for snubbing the student media and talking only with PBS-affiliate WHRO about his departure.

Cheers to student activism. Jeers to graffiti. Especially on the Wren Building.

Cheers to Andrew Seve ’10 for evading police for days and even managing to perform at Homebrew while he was wanted. Jeers to the police for allowing that to happen.

Cheers to the College for creating a position to address staff concerns. Jeers to calling it the “ombudsperson.” Seriously. Ombudsperson?

Cheers to SEAC for bring environmental issues to the fore. Jeers to the College for doing little about them.

Cheers to new Registrar Winifred Sowder for giving students the chance to vote in Williamsburg. Jeers to former registrar Dave Andrews for denying them that right. Jeers to Dave Andrews for allegedly stealing city money. Jeers to Dave Andrews for pretty much everything.

Cheers to the Student Assembly for its commitment to student voting. Jeers to the SA for following through on only half of passed bills.

Cheers to the City Council candidates for debating on campus. Jeers to it taking so long.

Cheers to Matt Beato. Jeers to Clyde Haulman.

Cheers to Gov. Tim Kaine for saying he’d make higher education a top priority. Jeers to Kaine for then cutting our state funding by 6 percent.

Cheers to Del. Tim Hugo’s alma mater (the College). Jeers to Hugo and others in the General Assembly for belittling it. And for meddling in its affairs. And for cutting its funding.

Cheers to free music. Jeers to the Recording Industry Association of America for targeting college students.

Cheers to UCAB for bringing Guster and the Ying Yang Twins to campus. Jeers to B. J. Novak for not being as funny as Ryan.

Cheers to the restored Matoaka Amphitheater. Jeers to the city for ending our concerts there at 10 p.m.

Cheers to the Sex Workers’ Art Show for upholding free speech. Jeers to those who attempted to censor it.

Cheers to the fencing team for rallying in the face of tragedy. R.I.P. Pete Conomikes and Ben Gutenberg ’11.

Cheers to the effort the logo committee put into the new logo. Jeers to everything else about it.

Cheers to Tribe men’s basketball for its historic run to the CAA finals. Jeers to the pep band for not showing up until the championship game.

Cheers to the Class of 2008.

Cheers to student voting. Go to the polls May 6.

Cheers to Sam Sadler and the College he’s served for 41 years.

Cheers to the Flat Hat!

— Max Fisher Apr 25, 09:07 AM #
Cheers to a great year. Jeers to being one year closer to the real world.

— Ross Gillingham Apr 25, 09:23 AM #
Great piece. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it!!

Cheers

— Class 2005 Apr 25, 11:54 AM #
Can we get a cheers for Mug Night? I feel that this has been an integral part of the 2007-2008 school year. Also, how about a cheers for campus golf? Rock it KD!

— Sir Hobbit Gopher Apr 27, 01:59 PM #
“Cheers to the BOV for coming to campus to explain a tough but ultimately right decision.”

Jeers to the FlatHat for turning into the Virginia Informer and agreeing with the BOV just because they’re the BOV.

Should Really Be Working On Finals,
-X

— x Apr 28, 02:35 PM #
X-

I don’t normally agree with the Flat Hat’s editorials, but I felt thy did a very good job with their opinion piece explaining why they supported the BOV’s decision not to renew Nichol: http://www.flathatnews.com/opinions/1917/staff-editorial-a-painful-proper-decision

— Nick ('09) Apr 28, 05:12 PM #
Regarding cheering/jeering Flat Hat editorial stances: TFH runs two or three staff editorials an issue, two issues a week, for like 25 weeks. That’s 50-75 editorials. I don’t think anybody (including specific members of the editorial board itself) is going to agree with every single FH staff editorial.

Anyone who read my columns knows I personally fall on the anti-Nichol-firing side. But, despite disagreeing with that staff editorial’s conclusions, I’ve still got to “cheer” rather than “jeer” it because it, just like the other 50+ editorials written this year:

1) Made its points clearly, dispassionately and without any of the ideological fervor or force you see in right-wing crazies like the Informer (or in left-wing zealots like myself)
2) It accounted very carefully for every possible opinion in a way that was respectful to dissenters on both sides
3) It was written with the interests of the College — and not of any ideology or political agenda — solely in mind

That’s why I wholly respect, carefully read, and ultimately “cheer” every FH staff editorial, whether I agree or disagree. And that’s why FH staff editorials carry so much weight: readers of every political stripe know they can trust them.

This brings me to a quick digression: Andrew Peters is way, way overdo for some recognition. As the staff editorial writer and one of the members of the 5-person board, he is without question the most important student commentator on this campus. (Sorry Piepenbring — you & I tie for 2nd?) It seems unfair that columnists like me get all kinds of attention (positive and negative) while Andrew has to work way harder, gets to be way less self-indulgent, and is recognized so little. Maybe Andy likes it that way, maybe not (I think the reaction to my column on frats may have made him thankful for his quasi-anonymity), but as long as people are reading the comments on this, his last staff ed of the year, he’ll get a bit of the recognition he deserves.

— Max Fisher Apr 29, 07:33 AM #
As an opponent of both Nichol and Max, I say “hear hear!” for Fisher’s comments. FH articles and opinions are well written even when badly reasoned. They are to be commended for their efforts regardless of which side of the aisle they occupy. My opinion (and that’s ALL it is Max) is that the passage of time will undo much liberal indoctrination (Max would call it education or enlightenment). To paraphrase Churchill, if you’re not liberal when you’re young, you have no heart…and if you’re not conservative when you’re older you have no brain.

I’m in this entirely for the politics and opposed Nichol because I viewed him entirely as a politician. I think his method of parting company with the College tends to support this view. And in a political fight nothing is off limits (though I still deplore involving Nichol’s family or irrelevant personal issues, such as his weight, etc.). Politics is what it is and it’s not pretty. But at least we are free to have these fights! The purpose of a democracy, in my view, is to keep politicians perpetually at each other’s throats so they have little time to pick our pockets or infringe our freedoms. (We can debate what that means later!) I’ll even throw in a grudging “huzzah” for Max due to his youthful (though misguided) enthusiasm and verve.

That being said, I still think the Virginia Informer has the FH beat when it comes to thoughtfulness. I’m sure my politics color that view. Still, an open minded person should have no trouble reading the VI (as I read the FH) for the other side. Besides, you’ll need those kernels of knowledge when your brain finally over-rules your heart! And VI writers are swimming against the liberal tide of most other students and the faculty, showing lots of guts. Had Nichol prevailed, they’d have lost the last bastion of impartiality as well, namely the College’s administration. So I admire the VI as well. The easier path, one more likely to gain peer acceptance, would have been to be liberal, pretend to be so or simply keep silent. They do not and for that I say again: hear hear AND huzzah!.

— owens Apr 29, 10:07 AM #
Cheers to the Flat Hat for covering such a wide array of issues this year and getting each issue out in a timely manner.

Jeers to the Flat Hat for acting like petulant spoiled children, and forcing readers to listen to the whining, because Gene Nichol chose to talk to PBS instead.

— W&M Observer May 2, 01:44 AM #
“Jeers to the Flat Hat for acting like petulant spoiled children, and forcing readers to listen to the whining, because Gene Nichol chose to talk to PBS instead.” W&M Observer

Generally, I view the Flat Hat as a liberal mouthpiece and it gives me no pleasure to defend them. However, I think their upset with Nichol in this case is entirely valid. Nichol encouraged everyone to see his administration as having a “new” kind of relationship with students. It’s my understanding that he made frequent impromtu visits to the dorms, sat in the student section at football games, and used various other ploys (he’d call them “methods”) to encourage this view of Nichol as the student’s pal.

So when they were rejected during his abrupt departure I think it’s entirely reasonable for the FH, having usually been his vocal support on campus, to feel somewhat humiliated and let down. And to their credit, they let this be known. The political thing to do would been to have ignored this insult or brushed it off as unimportant.

In short, the brain is beginning to take over from the heart, and that’s the beginning of wisdom. It’s grossly unfair to characterize their reaction as “whining”. I’d say they were rubbing the sleep from their eyes and awakening to the fact that Nichol was their “pal” mostly because it suited his political objectives.

— owens May 2, 12:18 PM #
1) I would estimate that, as of Nichol’s departure, approximately half of the FH editorial staff was politically conservative. Somewhere between 45%-65%

2) You know what’s funny? People who are very liberal constantly accuse the Flat Hat of being a conservative mouthpiece and people who are very conservative constantly accuse the Flat Hat of being a liberal mouthpiece.

3) People who work on the Flat Hat editorial staff find the combination of (1) and (2) to be hilarious. Personally, I think it’s kind of depressing, but I’m not on the editorial staff so I can’t share their perspective.

4) People love to shoot the messenger. As long as there is a “culture war” being waged on/to/about a place, people at that place will always accuse those brave enough to be objective (note: this does not include me) as puppets of the opposite side. Maybe this is because they want to discredit objectivity which might not be 100% flattering to their viewpoint and maybe it’s because they fear honest reporting, I don’t know. But I know The Flat Hat is not alone in this particular trend, never has been and has never will be.

5) The vast majority of people (including journalism professionals, who, last fall, awarded the Flat Hat a Pacemaker Award, the highest award in student media or journalism) trust the Flat Hat as an objective an reliable source.

6) There are some people who really hate the truth.

7) Students who work 40-50 hours a week at the Flat Hat, without pay (and without the benefit of the juicy scholarships given by conservative PACs to editors of certain other campus papers) and knowing that they will constantly be vilified by people on both ends of the political spectrum desperate to spin the truth, knowing that it will kill their grades and thus chances at grad school and will make holding a job (and thus living a lifestyle half as nice as that of the average W&M student) impossible are heroes. No one is more dedicated to this school or happy to self-sacrifice for you, the reader who probably doesn’t even know that editor’s name and, if you do, probably only knows that name so you can vilify them as an ultra-conservative/liberal. Worth noting.

8) I don’t expect any of this to change but, as long as the usual cast continues to attack people about whom they know nothing with hilariously self-defeating arguments, someone should point out the reality.

— Max Fisher May 2, 07:38 PM #
max, seriously, you are all heroes? if you’re as good as you think you are, you’ll get a fine job in journalism after you graduate. (BECAUSE of the long hours you pulled and the clips you’ll have to show for your time).

the press is a vital part of each democratic process, but what happens when you start viewing yourselves as messengers of the truth straight from god? perhaps the spin of egomania?

this comes from a fellow journalist in the real world – do not get distracted by your own grandiosity.

— for the love of god May 3, 10:31 AM #
Very interesting view Max. I’m not the least bit objective either! I’m proudly conservative and have been on this site solely for the politics. But Max, no credit for the Virginia Informer staff? A FH article last fall revealed that the faculty and students are overwhelmingly liberal. That means, however you spin this, the VI writers are swimming upstream. I’m not asking you to agree with them on even the smallest thing. Just acknowledge that they’ve the courage of their convictions (the same credit I give to FH writers, including you and those to the left of you… if there is anyone more left-leaning than you!).

I’m afraid for Max Fisher to say that the FH is not left-ward enough for him is hardly a revelation nor a ringing endorsement of the FH’s ability to see both sides. If what Max says is true there’d be no need for the VI. I suppose it depends on just where one places that dividing line (if there is such a thing) between left & right. My guess is that viewed from within the mostly liberal, ivy-covered-wall-protected W&M micro-environment, that line is placed incorrectly by the average student. Adrift in a turbulent sea of liberal baloney, you can hardly open your mouth (much less your eyes) without being slapped in the face by the next foamy wave of BS. Anyway, the VI is throwing life rings and rafts, like a kind of Coast Guard of truth. Max (and, to a lesser extent, the FH) is more of a siren drawing you towards the rocks. But Max sings with such vigor and passion! (As did Saint Nichol.) But being passionate and dead wrong are not mutually exclusive. Still, bravo for the effort Max. To all others: helm hard to starboard – the aclu shoals and disaster lie dead-ahead!

— owens May 3, 10:56 AM #
There isn’t a “need” for the VI, if you view it under the standards applied to newspapers. If there was a “need” for it, the paper would be somewhat widely read and the website somewhat frequently visited. But their circulation numbers and website traffic stats are abysmally low, which is why they sell little or no ads. If they served a readership, they would have readers, and they would sell ads. If they provided reliable reporting, they would have gained readers by reputation or trust, and would sell ads.

The vast majority of their operating budget comes from a PAC that only funds them if they provide the right spin. That sure doesn’t sound like a newspaper to me.

— Max Fisher May 3, 05:50 PM #
It is not surprising that “nearly all students on campus regard the Virginia Informer as a joke” After all, if nearly all students on campus are liberal it would follow that the VI would not be their favorite publication. However, this very lack of diversity of opinion on campus demonstrates the need for a publication like the Virginia Informer.

I am an Alum and erstwhile Flat Hat contributor who lives in town. I read both the FH and the VI and find them both to be of interest. There is an old time concept that there might be two sides to every story and a thoughtful individual understands both sides and then makes up his own opinion.

The biggest problem I have with the Flat Hat is that it is a “tool” and “mouthpiece” for the W&M Administration [as it always was] and thus its reporting often is selective and biased.

By the way, most young people of college age tend to be pretty liberal and idealistic and have great plans to “save the world”. I was no exception when I was a student.

The key benefit of a liberal arts education is to learn to think for yourself and in order to do that you must expose yourself to all sides of any issue before forming your own opinion.

— Jeff '62 May 4, 12:47 PM #
It is really in bad taste and bad form to slam the competition. I say this having held executive and volunteer jobs in public relations and finance, as well as being the parent of a current W&M student.
I read both papers and find the VA Informer to be intelligent and informed, covering edgy topics. I find the Flat Hat’s writing to be informative, but covering topics more of interest to a certain group of students, or maybe pertaining more to the writer’s own interests.
Mr. Fisher’s denial of the wmpd problems, without apparently any investigation has left the student body in the dark on a major issue this year, (Max, return your phone calls, news doesn’t write itself.)

— W&M supporter May 4, 03:32 PM #
To Jeff 62 and Max –

Like Jeff, I read the FH and the VI. While I prefer the VI, reading both seems the logical (and open minded) thing to do in order to hear all sides. (If there was a third or fouth venue, I’d read them too.) I’m an admirer of what I call classical liberalism, which is a far cry from what liberalism is today. It must be nice to have your view of world PLUS the certainty of being so sure it’s correct, complete and without flaws that there’s no need to pay any attention to opposing views. Not to mention embracing a philosophy that encourages one to self-pat one’s back frequently in public while proclaiming loudly you are the ONLY side that’s open-minded, error-free and compassionate to boot! My modest little ideology hasn’t attained that lofty status. I remain mired in questions, enigmas and uncertainty. It must be nice to have all the answers in a neat little package.

— owens May 4, 03:35 PM #
Max-
Let me know how you got our website traffic information. I would really like to know. I am sure you are aware that a website can be visited and that the numbers will not show up on the article counters if they do no click on it directly.

I also encourage you to look up what a PAC is.

And if it is not widely read, then why are little are no issues left on the racks at the end of each week in which the paper is distributed? Compare that to the hundreds of Flat Hats that they thrown out every Tuesday and Friday when you put out a new issue.

Max, look in the mirror— I think your bitterness is showing.

— VAI Staffer May 4, 03:41 PM #
One more thing, Max, after you get out in the real world for a few years, revisit what you have written here attacking the work and opinions of others and see how it strikes you.
I do not even know who you are, but I am concerned that you college experience hasn’t taught you any better than what strikes me as “off the wall slams at others” for no reason whatsoever. Your comments come across as mean spirited and very unprofessional.
This kind of stuff doesn’t play well in the business world.

— W&M supporter May 4, 04:06 PM #
I read both the FH and VAI, and I can say that without any doubt the Informer is much more interesting to read. I love its investigatory pieces that the FH seems to constantly avoid (maybe because they fear having their budget cut by the administration?). Also, I think Max is incorrect when he says the Informer takes money from PACs. The Informer is non-partisan and while it may have certain views at times, they are certainly not always ultra-conservative. WMPD, free speech code changes, arts and culture, hello? Also, didnt Flat Hat editors win all of those school sponsored journalism scholarships last month and no other publication won any? The FH should stop whining about the Informer and start to step up their coverage of campus issues. Bottom line, I think the school would be at a major loss without students like me being able to read the Informer. I will continue to read every issue next year. The Flat Hat is like my high school paper that reported what the administration put out in press releases (which is not a bad thing, just not very interesting).

— Student '10 May 4, 04:28 PM #
Jeff62: The assertion that the FH is “a tool and mouthpiece for the administration” would be difficult to defend, given that the FH broke & heavily reported on the Wren cross removal, the Nichol/Sullivan emails, the revoked $12M, the BOV member resigning in protest and many other stories very embarrassing for the administration. TFH’s editorial board has publicly condemned Nichol and the BOV on a number of occasions. If TFH is a mouthpiece, it’s not a very good one.

“W&M Supporter”: I’m not a news writer. I just write (or used to write; I’m graduating) a weekly opinions column. I wrote a column on WMPD last fall you can google if you’d like read. As for answering my phone… no idea what you’re talking about.

owens: I’m not sure what your point is, but the idea of objective reporting is to be absent of ideology, not to represent the “right” ideology. If people think TFH fails in achieving that objectivity, they’re welcome to stop reading it & visiting the website, at which point TFH would no longer be able to sell ads and would be forced to cut back on printing volume and/or frequency. (This happens with newspapers sometimes. The Santa Barbara News-Press, for example, changed owners a few years. The new owners were ideologically-drive and stopped producing reliable objective reporting. Their circ numbers have been tanking ever since, ad sales have followed, and it looks like the paper might not survive much longer.)

“VAI Staffer”: Your web hit numbers are publicly visible, and the print circ is common knowledge. I’m all for getting as much media on campus as possible. The more publications, (1) the more people writing & thinking about campus issues and (2) the more attractive W&M will be to potential students & faculty. And as an opinions writer (and someone nerdy enough to post on the flat hat website) I obviously think commentary and discussion has a lot of value. But I think that if the VAI wants to create some kind of presence on campus it will have to consider that, as for any newspaper of any kind: (1) it would be beneficial to print more frequently and with more content (2) printing more requires more ad revenue (3) increased print/online readership would allow for more ad sales and higher ad rates. How the VAI staff wishes to increase readership is its business. But, if it were me, I would consider very carefully why a potential reader may or may not choose to read the VAI.

Student ’10: The VAI is primarily funded by a non-profit called the Collegiate Network that calls itself a conservative group. See this article:
http://flathat.wm.edu/2006-09-29/story.php?type=1&aid=11

— Max Fisher May 4, 04:47 PM #
After looking online and your article, it is obviously clear that CN is not a PAC. Make sure to check into these things before you slander another campus organization with an obvious lie. It appears to be a 501c3 organization which is giving money to another 501c3 organization in The Informer. Why do you continue/care so much to criticize them anyway? It is obvious that the VAI is larger in circulation and # of issues than the DSJ and Pillory but you do not say the same things about them? It would obviously appear that you and many others at the FH feel threatened by them in some way. In my opinion, as a student reader who pays to fund the FH through student activity fees, it is that FH content does not match VAI.

— Student '10 May 4, 05:48 PM #
I didn’t bring up the Virginia Informer. Someone made a series of posts about why they believe the FH is biased and cited the VI’s existence as proof. So, to defend my own belief that the FH is not biased, I had to address his/her use of the VI as evidence.

While the Virginia Informer prints more issues than the Pillory, which is a humor magazine and not a news source, it prints less issues than the Dog Street Journal. That doesn’t mean it’s bad or anything, but it’s worth being accurate.

Re: PAC vs. 5023c, the point is that the Collegiate Network calls themselves a conservative organization and that they provide the majority of the VI funding; how they file their taxes seems besides the point.

To reiterate: I’m not saying you or anyone else shouldn’t read the VI or should only read the FH. Nothing wrong with reading multiple sources and nothing wrong with presenting different viewpoints.

— Max Fisher May 4, 06:51 PM #
I enjoy reading the Virginia Informer. I just do not get it why one Flat Hat staffer would attack another paper which is obviously doing a good job and expressing students’ opinions. Taking the low road, Max, makes uninvolved spectators feel very uncomfortable.

This sounds like a personal thing to me; it unfortunately and undeservedly reflects on the entire FlatHat staff..especially since your name is linked online with the FlatHat. It is almost as if you are expressing an editorial opinion…(?).

I would hope the W&M college degree, whether business or liberal arts, would prepare graduates for the business world with the idea that personal attacks never look good in print.

— W&M Supporter May 4, 07:22 PM #
“I’m not saying you or anyone else shouldn’t read the VI or should only read the FH. Nothing wrong with reading multiple sources and nothing wrong with presenting different viewpoints.” Max

Whewww… getting a straight answer from Max is like pulling teeth. We finally agree on something. But, again, no credit for the VI staffers going against the entrenched liberalism at W&M? Even if they’re wrong (in your opinion) they’re at least willing to step up to the plate and state their views. You see nothing to admire (or at least acknowledge) in this?

— owens May 4, 08:18 PM #
To be “accurate” Max, The Informer comes out biweekly, 12 issues this year (says Volume 3, Issue 12, plus I think they had an orientation issue or something). The DSJ comes out once a month, 8 issues (says Volume 4, Issue 8 on the last issue). You really should be getting more of your facts straight if you are going to criticize another organization, that’s just very unprofessional. I only mean to sound like a prick on this posting wall (because I doubt people are reading this dialog so far down) because you and FH staff probably diffuse this false information as negative propaganda around campus, “PACs” and “smaller that DSJ” to get people to think poorly about the VAI. Does the VAI do this to you guys? I only ask because I honestly do not know and have never seen/heard them do it to you. I have also heard from a few friends who work on FH staff that your paper actively steals away VAI writers by using this false information? All this speaks so poorly against the integrity of a nearly century old paper…

— Student '10 May 4, 08:51 PM #
I, for one non-student, appreciate the perspective of the Virginia Informer staffers, and appreciate their time, and work in keeping me up-to-date on W&M happenings.

It is important to recognize that these students work just as hard and their opinions count just as much as those of the FlatHat staff, their funding source is just different.

Frankly, it may be disingenious to characterize the VA Informer as conservative, and the Flat Hat as liberal when the financial underpinnings of the FH ultimately come from the Commonwealth of Va General Fund, which is pretty conservative also. So, Max, all of this about 501c3, PAC, or General Fund? its really about respecting others’ opinions, and not tooting one’s own horn, at the expense of the other guy, isn’t it?

— W&M Supporter May 4, 09:12 PM #
In response to those saying I’m “attacking” the VAI:

It’s not that I don’t respect conservative views or opinions, and it’s not that I think people can’t be personally conservative and journalistically objective. After all, two of the three FH reporter/editors who I think are the most talented, most objective, and most respected (by me and many others) happen to be pretty conservative. But they don’t let their personal views effect their reporting and editing, which is why they are so widely respected by conservative, liberal and moderates alike and enjoy vast readerships. The fact that certain critics, ignorant of those reporters’ conservative politics, constantly accuse the reporters of being biased liberals says a lot more about the critics than the reporters, I think. I also have a lot of respect for the many thoughtful, intelligent conservative opinions writers.

As for who is being professional, a google search of articles on the VAI website shows 16% of those articles reference the Flat Hat. That’s 89/550, one in six. Maybe you think it’s unprofessional for me to point this out, but I think citing one fact to defend myself against a handful of personal attacks (all anonymous – way to be professional!) is merited. Besides, I’m just one person, a former opinions writer, pointing out some (potentially embarrassing) facts about the VAI, whereas the Informer regularly prints editorially-approved attacks like, “if you’re reading The Flat Hat you might have more problems than simple misinformation.” Professional indeed.

Also, “Student ’10” is right that the VAI published four more issues this year than the DSJ. While I don’t think this changes any of my points, it’s important to note I was wrong and to clarify the details of publishing frequency. So, TFH 48, VAI 12, DSJ 8, Pillory 2. I think Jump! published twice but I’m not sure.

— Max Fisher May 5, 03:12 PM #
My speculation on why the VAI is not highly-read:

I guess my concerns with the VAI are kind of moot, as so few people read it. After all, they claim a staff of 60, and most articles on their website show less than 60 hits, so it looks like even VAI staffers don’t bother to read it. I guess I have a problem with it because their funding is contingent on the openly-ideological conservative Collegiate Network approving their conservative spin, which means they’re beholden to an ideological-political standard rather than, say, their own personal standards of integrity and responsibility. It also kind of bothers me that the editor gets (or did get at one point, not sure if it’s been renewed) a $5k scholarship for the VAI.

So, hypothetically, let’s say there was a big campus issue/event. The VAI staff, hypothetically, decides that, though they are each personally conservative, they feel the specific issue/event is a case where the liberal take is better. They’ve talked it out and, though they agree with 99% of conservative positions, on this one they prefer the liberal position. It’s not ideological, their best judgment just happens to overlap with the liberal position this one time. So they defend the position that happens to be liberal and condemn the position that happens to be conservative.

But this is unlikely, not because VAI staffers don’t have the ability to be free-thinkers, but because, in doing so, they would risk their funding from the Collegiate Network and thus their ability to print they very position they wished to present. The editor would also personally risk the $5k scholarship being renewed. So, their survival as a publication and the personal financial well-being of the editor are contingent on their furthering the conservative agenda, whether or not they agree with it or think it’s the right thing to do. I don’t know if this has ever happened, but it’s an undeniable possibility, and a troubling position for a newspaper to be in.

Most people know this and I think it has a lot to do with their low readership. But, of course, I’m just speculating. Everyone has their own motivation for reading or not reading a particular publication and it might be totally different than the one I’ve supposed here.

— Max Fisher May 5, 03:18 PM #
Addressing the assertion that TFH relies on outside funding and might have the same objectivity-deficit as the VAI:

Tt’s important to note that TFH independently raises the vast majority of its operating budget from advertising. I don’t know the exact figures, but last time I saw the budget numbers TFH took less than 10% from Student Activities fees. To clarify, Student Activities fees are collected from students by the Student Assembly, then given to the College’s publication council, then to specific publications like TFH. (The VAI is not on the publication council and receives no Student Activities money.) Virginia’s General Assembly, money from the state of Virginia or Virginia voters/residents, or any other institution outside the College’s student body is not involved. The point is that TFH is not beholden to any person or institution but its staff’s own best judgment.

It’s also important to note that TFH is editorially independent from the College and administration, despite what a couple of the anonymous posts implied. The last incident of admins interceding in FH coverage was in 1945 and the resulting uproar against the College is why TFH has no prior review by the administration or even a faculty advisor, which is very unusual for a college newspaper. The closest TFH has is a very friendly administrator who rubberstamps the paperwork for the paper’s printing contract, which is contingent on some very boring laws relating to open-bid state contracts.

In my four years of varying levels of involvement with TFH, the only time I know of when the administration made any request of us was two and a half years ago. TFH had gotten some vague anonymous death threats on its online submission form directed at a non-FH student. We alerted the police and relevant admins, who investigated. One admin called our office to ask, very humbly, if we would consider waiting a few days to publish anything about the death threats. The admin expressed concern that a published a story could jeopardize the investigation and put the threatened student at risk from the obviously imbalanced threatener. The admin went to great lengths to tell us he understood we were editorially independent and that the decision was completely ours and that we should do what we thought was right, but that he was asking us as a fellow member of the community to consider any potential risks. We held a staff meeting where we agreed running the story would risk the threatened student’s life to an extent that obviously outweighed any benefits of publishing and did not run the story until it was resolved.

— Max Fisher May 5, 03:27 PM #
Methinks Max doth protest way too much.

— Jeff '62 May 5, 04:54 PM #
Methinks Max has been a great contributor to the dialog at WM.
Methinks the VAI staff is posting most of these comments.

— Tom '04 May 5, 05:38 PM #
You make some good points Max and I respect them. I can imagine both the VAI and FH staff work very hard in putting together their issues (although the DSJ is a different story, I pick up their copies just for a laugh), and that is what should be noted. I read and enjoy both. That being said, I really feel like maybe your two staffs should be reaching out to one another, not to work out differences necessarily, but to just share information. Because what is absolutely clear to me is that a great deal of your facts seems to be incorrect, even by your own admission. And with a college that is run by a staunch honor code, launching both negative and false attacks against others could run students into trouble who should not even be acting this way in the first place. Maybe suggest that to your editors. I honestly don’t know why I am still writing anymore, but I just felt that given your really long last statement, I didn’t want to leave you hanging without any response.

— Student '10 May 5, 06:10 PM #
I have no idea if what Max says is true or not. I’ve been reading both only since Nichol became President. I’ve seen a lot more attacks coming from the FH, while in the Informer I rarely see the FH mentioned, and then only in passing. If these allegations of VI staff misbehavior “off the clock” are true that’d be a shame. The vandalism, intimidation and threats that have made it into the public press recently (all press, not just FH or VI) have all been from the left, especially in the wake of Nichol’s resignation email and the accustions it contained. But that doesn’t make Max or the FH in any way responsible. Nichol, on the otherhand, should have shown more restraint and maturity. Ultimately I blame him alone for the polarization of the campus.

— owens May 5, 08:18 PM #
Max, you seem to be going to quite extreme measures to attack the Informer and to defend the Flat Hat…

You compare apples and oranges in terms of Informer and TFH issues per year. Informer editions actually have SUBSTANCE and are not flimsy three-page compilations printed twice a week to reduce the appearance of competition.

You claim it would be impossible for them to criticize a traditionally conservative cause? Please explain the staff editorials demanding an end to the bias reporting system, police accountability, advocating free speech code changes, etc. Juxtapose these opinions with those of the Flat Hat. The key distinction is that the Informer has the courage to print facts and opinions unsavory to the College leadership, nothing less should be expected of an independent campus paper (unless, of course, editors are hand-picked by the administration. cough Flat Hat). It is appalling that you seem unaware of the oft-cited feeling of castration while reading TFH. It certainly is a fitting feeling after enduring most content.

You are in an unhealthy state of denial about the courage writers for the Informer exhibit on a regular basis. Your assumption that it is rarely read is utterly false, should you leave your room on days when the Informer is distributed, you will see people reading it cover-to-cover. The same cannot be said of TFH, infamous for weak journalism and spineless position-taking. Hundreds of copies of TFH accumulate in the local landfill or incinerator twice a week.

— get a fucking clue May 6, 03:01 AM #
Not a single fact or idea in the last post is true, which of course is not surprising given that it’s anonymous; the author obviously doesn’t want to be held accountable for lying so close to the end of the year. If I worked at the VAI I would be embarrassed by that post.

You should know that most readers know the things you’ve posted are lies and that such dishonesty only rallies otherwise indifferent students around the Flat Hat, which is ironic, given that your intention is obviously to undermine.

— Max Fisher May 6, 03:24 AM #
Correction: It is true that The Flat Hat is printed twice-weekly. Everything else is false.

— Max Fisher May 6, 03:27 AM #
Max, there are number of your characterizations in your last few posts that I think are unfair.

“As for who is being professional, a google search of articles on the VAI website shows 16% of those articles reference the Flat Hat. That’s 89/550, one in six.”-Most of those references are “as reported in the Flat Hat” which we need for our news articles as the Flat hat prints four times as much as the Informer and when the Informer reports on a story we need cite the Flat Hat’s article.

“guess I have a problem with it because their funding is contingent on the openly-ideological conservative Collegiate Network approving their conservative spin, which means they’re beholden to an ideological-political standard rather than, say, their own personal standards of integrity and responsibility.”-The Collegiate Network doesn’t approve our publications at all. They don’t even suggest articles or give warnings if they don’t like what we are doing.

“It also kind of bothers me that the editor gets (or did get at one point, not sure if it’s been renewed) a $5k scholarship for the VAI.”-This is simply not true.

“So, their survival as a publication and the personal financial well-being of the editor are contingent on their furthering the conservative agenda, whether or not they agree with it or think it’s the right thing to do.”-In the past issue alone, I had a news article about temp workers at the school being denied rightful benefits and an opinion piece calling on the city/WHRA to promote more affordable housing in Williamsburg. Very conservative.

— Nick ('09) May 6, 11:21 AM #
The $5k scholarship is described in the Flat Hat article referenced in post #21. I believe the source for that information was the recipient of the scholarship.

— Max Fisher May 6, 05:18 PM #
It’s interesting to me that Max refuses to acknowledge the areas of commonality between a FH and a VI staffer. Both are willing to work and write about what they believe and both do so openly. As to any threats, vandalism, intimidation, it seems to me highly unlikely that any staff at either paper was a direct participant.

Max’s inability to see any overlap between what he does and what’s done at the VI is nothing short of astounding. He acts almost as if the VI arrived via spaceship from Area 51. Years and years of “diversity” training seems to have been wasted on Max. Can he not see the the FH and the VI are similar in some basic aspects? (Granted, they have significant differences too.) Max, according to the dictates of liberalism, should be “celebrating” those differences. Yet he does not. He can’t seem to close out the year by just jumping over the net and shaking hands – a simple gesture indicating civility, nothing more. And quite in keeping with his leftist philosophy, as no important principles are compromised. It just get curiouser and curiouser.

— owens May 7, 09:38 AM #
Max—

I don’t have a copy of old Flat Hats but I’m pretty sure that you ran a correction saying that the $5,000 scholarship was erroneously reported.

— Nick ('09) May 7, 10:37 AM #
You compare apples and oranges in terms of Informer and TFH issues per year. Informer editions actually have SUBSTANCE and are not flimsy three-page compilations printed twice a week to reduce the appearance of competition.
FACT

You claim it would be impossible for them to criticize a traditionally conservative cause? Please explain the staff editorials demanding an end to the bias reporting system, police accountability, advocating free speech code changes, etc. Juxtapose these opinions with those of the Flat Hat. The key distinction is that the Informer has the courage to print facts and opinions unsavory to the College leadership, nothing less should be expected of an independent campus paper (unless, of course, editors are hand-picked by the administration. cough Flat Hat). It is appalling that you seem unaware of the oft-cited feeling of castration while reading TFH. It certainly is a fitting feeling after enduring most content.
ALL FACT

You are in an unhealthy state of denial about the courage writers for the Informer exhibit on a regular basis. Your assumption that it is rarely read is utterly false, should you leave your room on days when the Informer is distributed, you will see people reading it cover-to-cover. The same cannot be said of TFH, infamous for weak journalism and spineless position-taking. Hundreds of copies of TFH accumulate in the local landfill or incinerator twice a week.
LOTS OF FACTS

— get a fucking clue May 7, 01:25 PM #
Nick — I don’t have it either, and I don’t think corrections went up on the old website so I haven’t been able to google it. But I’ve never seen you post anything knowingly incorrect before and have no reason to believe you’d start now.

I did some searches through my old email, though, and found one from the editor in question where he said the scholarship came from the Phillips Foundation. While it is certainly important to note that the scholarship does NOT come from the same group that funds the Informer, the Phillips Foundation is a conservative group that gives awards to conservative journalists (its two programs are a “Ronald Reagan” scholarship and a “journalism fellowship”). The editor in question said the scholarship was for “achievements … against collegiate political correctness.” I think we can safely conclude ‘political correctness’ is code for certain elements of liberalism.

Therefore, I maintain that this particular editor received a scholarship for ideologically conservative journalism and was thus financially dependent on furthering conservativism in the VAI despite any contradictory personal judgment.

However, the editor in question is graduating and I have no idea if the same scholarship will be passed on to future VAI editors. Therefore it is important to note that future VAI editors may very well NOT be personally financially dependent on consistently promoting conservative ideas in the VAI. Thank you for correcting me and making this important distinction.

On a personal note, though this online discussion is obviously littered with a lot of personal attacks and general obnoxiousness, I find it very encouraging to see Nick defending his publication using credible facts and showing consideration and respect to me despite my obvious reservations about his newspaper. Several people have pointed out that the VAI and FH need to come together rather than fight and bicker and it seems Nick is trying to do exactly that. It also seems he’s discussing this often-emotional issue with cool-headed judgment and a respect of promoting facts above bias, objectivity above subjectivity, even when a pithy comment or personal attack would have been the easy thing to do. That’s reporting as it should be, and he’s clearly illustrated that good reporting is by no means exclusive to The Flat Hat.

— Max Fisher May 7, 02:00 PM #

The Flat Hat

Staff Editorial: Cheers and Jeers

Post a Comment

The Flat Hat

RSS Feeds