Come On

Or, the death of journalistic integrity

So we had this SGO election. That's great, give the students a voice, let them make a fair, informed decision. Right?

Apparently not.

First off, let me vent: people complain that this election is just a popularity contest. Really? We string a couple of contestants up, pan them, poke them, prod them - and then we vote. And, get this guys, the person who more people want to vote for (i.e. the more popular one) gets the office. Oh, wait, Democracy is a popularity contest. Ever wonder why we don't have ugly presidents? It's not because they did a bad job in the past (I'm thinking Honest Abe had facial warts). It's because every election, everywhere, goes to the person who wins the popular vote. Do I have to say it again? The more popular person. And the people who supported the primary losing candidate, well, I'm frankly embarrassed by their vitriol. Both candidates said they want to be the voice of the student body. The student body spoke, and in record numbers. And now, they both have a chance to fulfill their primary goal: Stephen by stepping into office, and Hogan by stepping away (which he has done, and I have no beef with Hogan), and their respective supporters realizing the campaign is over, and it's time to stop slinging garbage.

And now the meat.

The Sojourn has never been a great paper. They're pretty limited in interesting topics, and pretty limited in the pool of writers to draw from. It's never going to be an A-level paper unless IWU becomes an A-level school. And that's fine.

But.

That doesn't mean it can't be an A-level embarrassment. I think, in the right circles, that it is well-documented that Adam Wren, editor of the Sojourn, and Aaron Baker, SGO President, do not get along. It is also a well-propagated rumor that Stephen ran as a puppet figure for Aaron (who I'm sure, after graduating, has nothing better to do than manipulate the political happenings at IWU. Oh, wait, that's ridiculous). Apparently two people can't be friends without political manipulations. Whatever.

So apparently Adam must have decided to use his clout against Stephen, as a surrogate for his interpersonal squabble with Aaron. That's fine. He can have a political opinion, I guess, though it's hard to know how vocal the press should be. But, he's also a student, so fine. But the clout he decided to wield, or perhaps the staff as a whole just happened to wield, was the Sojourn, which is, frankly, garbage. I am embarrassed to admit I am graduating with the same degree as such yellow journalists.

And for the record, I'm not trying to attack Adam. I've had classes with him, plenty, and I like him. And I don't know Nick Rambo, and I'm not one to judge someone I don't know. I'm not saying they're crappy journalists or editors or people, just that somehow, partisanship steeped into a supposedly unbiased source. And that, frankly, is appalling.

First off: publishing lies. This could be just a mistake. However, when the Sojourn printed, it said Jake's stance on study abroad was the same as Stephen's. However, anyone who paid attention to the debate would remember Jake's flippant response to Stephen to be that the program is fine; in fact, one of his cabinet members is participating this semester.

Second: irresponsible use of charged words. Under Stephen's position on opening the Library on Sunday, the illustrious paper listed, "Undecided, cabinet divided." This is terrible, charged wording, and any editor worthy of headlining the crappiest paper should recognize a line crossed. In reality, Stephen articulated that he's not willing to tell the school what it should do, but rather would like to work both with student, administration, and library staff to figure out what is best for the school. Stephen took this stance because of the concerns of both administration members and library staff, who frankly were offended at Hogan's rogue attack on their sabbath. He did this because he refused to run on a promise that he knew he may not be able to keep. And the Cabinet? The individuals within had different opinions, yes. But differing opinions are a lot different than divisiveness. Petty semantics? Maybe. But it feels irresponsible to me. A writer should know, as Mark Twain said, the difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.

Third: Shady editorials. Shaun Waymire wrote an editorial attacking Hogan. Shaun is a muckraker. He cares nothing for Cady, he simply did not want to see Jake in office. Which is his right, and I'm sure people feel the sane way about Stephen. In fact, I know people do. Shaun, though, is involved in SGO, and is a good source for some things, and and editorial can be biased - it's an editorial. When Shaun submitted it, it was signed by five senators. When it was published, it was signed by three - one of whom has removed her signature, at the urging of Jake and (Sojourn Editor) Adam, and then, at the tug of her conscience, or maybe just Shaun's zeal, put her name back on. I'm sorry, but it is not okay for an editor of a paper to go to individuals who sign on an editorial and ask them if they're sure. And it's not okay for an editor to show the candidates one editorial, the one that bashes his particularly preferred candidate, but ignore other editorials that attack, in subtle ways, the others, including one that outright lied about Stephen and Patrick. The editorial implied that neither had (1) important administrational connections, or (2) relevant SGO experience.

(1) Are you serious? I can't speak for Patrick, but I know Stephen. I know that he came to IWU largely after being convinced by now President Henry Smith. I know he was babysat as a child by people who are professors at this school. I know he works for Julie Voss, Todd Voss's wife, and both works and runs with Emily, his daughter, and is familiar to and comfortable around him. I also know that Stephen has met the new Academic Provost for next year, and discussed with him the importance of differentiating the CAPS program from the traditional CAS program. This while Hogan was complaining about Sophomore Curfew - something that exists only for sophomores who weren't responsible freshman year, something that administrators he is apparently so connected with have said is not going away. But of course, Stephen had no chance to rebut this.

(2) Stephen, yes, had no SGO experience. That's fair. But Grindlay does, and the statement implicated them both, and I'm guessing Grindlay had no idea this editorial was going to run.

Further, I know for a fact that there were better quality editorials, from a writing standpoint, that were rejected. I'm not sure why, honestly. And I am not holier-than-thou; I admit I know little about how a paper works. But it seems to me an Editor with respect for his paper would want to publish the best available editorials, for every candidate. I could not say how many people mentioned, off-hand, how it had seemed like Hogan got a lot more thorough coverage. Seriously, guys, did you think you were invisible?

I have nothing against the staff at the Sojourn. I'm not even angry, really; Stephen ran a good, clean campaign, was straightforward and honest, and from what I can tell, so did the other candidates. And Stephen won, and I think (sure, I'm biased, my writing's on the internet, not in the media) he deserved to. I think he is poised to do great things, and I think his cabinet is stacked with important, productive voices. So Stephen, congratulations. And Sojourn, well, that was sloppy. Believe me, I know all about sloppy work. But I've also learned that at some point, you have to stop sliding, and have some respect for what you're doing. Honestly, come on.