The media isn't here to scratch backs
Jacob Stobler
Layout Editor
"Don't believe any of what you hear and
only half of what you see."
old journalism saying
I imagine that if someone took a public
opinion poll of various professions, jour
nalists might rate about as high as used
car salesmen and tax collectors. Like the
media as a whole, journalists are the pro
verbial bearers of ill tidings. How many
times have we seen people blame the
media for problems they only reported
on? Mike Krzyzewski did, Ronald Re
agan did, Richard Nixon did, the presi
dent of N.C. A&T University did, Gary
Hart really did.
Lately, The Guilfordian has been
caught in a crossfire of criticism and fin
ger-pointing with the administration on
one side and select students on the other.
On the whole, these two sides have be
haved just like any two factions on oppo-
QUILFORDIAN
Editor-in-Chief Jason Underwood
News Editor Peter Smith
Features Editor Eric Badertscher
Editorials Editor Laurel Nesbitt
Sports Editor Scott Genualdi
Photo Editor Charles Almy
Copy Editor David Simpson
Layout Editor Jacob Stohler
Business Manager Anna Yeargin
Production Coordinator Joyce Atkinson
Faculty Advisor Jeff Jeske
Assistant Copy Editor Laura Seel
Assistant Layout Editor Betsy Vance
Advertising Director Martha McCoy
Staff:
Hobie Anthony, Andrew Bloom, Dena Bolton, Carolyn Bundy, Brad Chance,
Eric Dawson, Allison Dean, Alexandra Duckworth, Sara Ellefson, Mike
Grossman, E.J. Hofferman, Larisa Hulnick, Vic Johnson, Baker Koppleman,
Dwayne Lawler, Butch Maier, Brywn Malbasa, Laura Marshall, Troy Martin,
Lisa Pope, Noelle Pulliam, Lara Ramsey, Cory Schwartz, Jane Scott, Joe Studi
vant, Ted Talcot, Eugene Wan and Ami Worthen.
The Guilfordian is the student newspaper of Guilford College, Greensboro,
N.C. Mailing information can be obtained through The Guilfordian's office.
Submitted articles are welcome. Opinions expressed in editorials and letters to
the editor do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff and editorial board of
The Guilfordian. Theeditor(s)reservetheeditoriallicencetoTheGuilfordian
staff. Please address all mail to: The Guilfordian, Box 17717, Greensboro, NC
27410.
2
THE GUILFORD IAN February 12, 1990
PERSPECTIVES
site sides of a controversial issue in the
real world, and both have inevitably be
come frustrated when they have realized
that the media isn't supporting their posi
tion.
What they overlook in their criticisms
is that it's the media's ultimate goal to
favor no one. So when they criticize that,
they are in effect saying, "We don't sup
port the nature of the free press."
At its purest, journalism is information.
The journalist gathers all available infor
mation and either uses it or excludes it
based on three criteria: substantiability,
relevance and, most importantly, bias.
Journalists train themselves to avoid their
own biases and to recognize those of the
people involved in the story. Ultimately,
the best news stories are those devoid of
opinion, rumor, bias, hearsay and gossip.
This can be a confusing concept for
those who aren't objective enough to
separate their views from fact. To them,
it makes no sense that their media doesn't
report things as they see them, leading
them to believe that the news has been
intentionally distorted.
The truth is that no one person can
know everything and understand it objec
tively. Therefore, journalists have devel
oped an approach to reporting which re
lies on multiple sources to compile a
complete and accurate view of events.
They must assume that any statement or
claim which cannot be substantiated is an
opinion and its inclusion threatens the
credibility of their entire story.
In short, cynicism is the reporter's great
est friend. By keeping in mind that every
one has an agenda or an end he or she
wants to promote, journalists find it easier
Recent editorial pieces em
phasize conflict between
license and principle
Laurel Nesbitt
Editorials Editor
It is always difficult to determine what
statements we as individuals, The
Guilfordian, Guilford College, etc.
should endorse and which go too far. A
recent battle in the letters to the editor
section has been over whether or not
Student Union used good judgment in
choosing to sponsor the showing of "9 1/
2 Weeks" on campus. Controversy arose
over the film's subject matter: the process
of a woman's sexual exploitation.
The debate itself was a tedious and
tiresome one, as letters battles tend to be
sometimes. But the important thing about
it was that it spotlighted the frequently
inflamed tension that exists between the
importance of preserving the liberties art
thrives on (the avoidance of censorship)
and the importance of being constantly
aware of the statements we are making
(and the possible damage being done). I
tend to root for the pro-art side of this
controversy, which seems to be saying
that, when a reel of film begins to turn in
a room, each member of the audience has
at every moment the complete freedom to
stand and exit
Certainly there is a strong pull toward
the other side of the argument as well,
though. Censorship is not really involved
in this issue. Union would not have been
keeping things from the student body by
not showing "91/2 Weeks." They would
WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
to dig past the rhetoric and get to the facts.
They usually have a hard time, and they
always end up upsetting people whodidn't
get their backs scratched just right.
Maybe journalists aren't a well-liked
lot, but the world depends on them more
than it would ever acknowledge. Look
where there is no independent media, and
you'll find a society awash in rhetoric and
finger-pointing with no solid base of facts
to stand on. Consider the difference and
then ask yourself: "Would I really want
The Guilfordian to print just my side?"
not have been refusing to show the Aim.
They would have been choosing to show
another film, or no film at all. What hangs
ova- all of this is the fact that, when an
organization chooses to present some
thing on this campus, it is in some way or
another representative of that organiza
tion, of the college as an institution with
certain value claims, and of the college as
a body of individuals.
The "9 1/2 Weeks" issue emphasizes
the complexity involved in determining
which statements made in the name of
freedom of expression are benign and
which are destructive. In his editorial
titled "In Loco Parentis Redux" (The
Guilfordian, Jan. 29), William Burris
gives a description of liberalism that seems
to deny that these distinctions need to be
made:
I suppose I must have missed some nuance
along the way, but I thought it was fairly
well established that liberalism, liberality
and the liberal arts accepted, indeed,
dictated tolerance and patience toward
beliefs, ideas, points of view, yea, even
expressions, overtones and jokes that
embarrass, infuriate or cause pain.
But can this really work? Can we say
anything we want to say or do anything we
want to do and still manage to preserve
order and, probably more importantly,
principle? It is crucial to our freedom that
we keep in mind our right to use our
voices, but there is also the unfortunate
reality that some voices damage others'
rights and impose a stance not only on that
voice, but on all of those represented by it.