[Daily Barometer] It's a start...

The Baro ran an editorial Friday rehashing some recent ethics issues in journalism.

The joke practically writes itself.

I mean, I could have stopped there.

It's a shame I'm not that smart.

Instead: Hey, Baro, why don't you look in your own closet? There's plenty of ethical skeletons in there. How about, I don't know, blackface? How about holding onto at least column for a few weeks because it was too critical of the paper (and then forcing changes to be made before agreeing to run it)?

Or - dare I say it - Nathanael Blake's entire run as a columnist?

But no. No, that would be.... what? Too introspective? Too hard? Require taking responsibility for the institution even when the individuals are long gone?

Sigh. Oh Baro, I remember when you were the top college paper in the nation. It's been a quick fall these last few years.

That said: At least I know that someone over there is thinking about journalistic ethics. I was pretty sure that wasn't the case there for awhile.

[Daily Barometer] Great Editorial on PeaceJam

This is so good it makes me think someone other than the normal editorial board wrote it.

Nevertheless, it's a great piece. And a great starting point (honestly, the Baro has a lot of work to do with its own staff before it can move to the rest of campus):

Examination of prejudice and preconceived notions on the part of all students is critical to the continuing understanding of the cultures that merge on our campus. It is also critical to making OSU a welcoming place for students from lands far and near.

We must fix our campus, before we can reach to other nations and offer a hand.

While the students at PeaceJam conference are raising dollars for Darfur and Sudan, we ask you join us in taking a look at ourselves, each of our behaviors and our contributions. It can be as small as working to recognize your misconceptions.

Peace starts with a willingness to learn.

[Lebanon] A Quote that Needs Context

From the Daily Barometer story about the Chinese New Year:

...and Corvallis residents found ways to celebrate the occasion even if they weren't Chinese.

"I usually go out to China Buffet," said Kelley Perry, a resident of Lebanon.

Like I said, it needs context.

[Daily Barometer] A Columnist Attempts to the Defend the Baro

As soon as I read the first paragraph of this, I started laughing. I knew what was coming. And sure enough, a few paragraphs in:

And no, I'm not going after the old saw that "everyone makes mistakes." While that's true, obviously the whole point is to try to make as few mistakes as possible, especially in the journalism business. What I'm getting at, instead, is that there are actual decisions being made here. Those typos are made by real, fleshly fingers. Folks with names and birthdays answer the phone when you call. These aren't automatons, or even generic authority figures; these are your classmates, and that means you can talk to them. [emphasis added]

Actually, Rachel, I'm sorry, but that's not even remotely true. You call the Baro a "shadowy edifice." That's pretty accurate - and it gets to the heart of the problem. There's no understanding of the Baro by the rest of the OSU community. The Barometer is, and has been, almost completely closed to outside interactions. Sure - readers can submit letters or guest columns, but more often than not, we don't get a response. Often, the only sign we get as to whether or not our submission will appear in the paper is to read the paper and see if it shows up. That's not a normal mistake; that's bad practice.

This year, it's not been the typos that have frustrated readers - it's been the abysmally horrible coverage of even basic events... if they get covered at all. I understand that the Baro is really, really short on staff right now - but have you ever considered that one reason for that is that the Baro staff is a closed clique that does not invite participation? I can attest to this personally, having theoretically provided "oversight" for two years as a member of the near-useless Student Media Committee.

Sigh:

So if you do find yourself with a little extra time and a large desire to talk, don't just complain about your student paper - you are a student. You, personally, can be a key component in fixing what's broken, even if it's just by edging out the stuff you don't like. This isn't my intended future career either, but it is great fun and great practice. I'm amazed by how much I've learned and I'd love to see more people join in.

I think I've addressed this already, but let me reiterate: Just because it looks easy to join from the inside, or just because it was easy for you, doesn't mean that all those folks who criticize without joining the clique are lazy/mean/irresponsible. Maybe the Baro needs to do a little more active outreach to the OSU community, rather than arrogantly and naively wait for people to come to it (or simply expect that a column in the same paper that so many people don't read will have an effect).

Finally, as for the line "don't just complain about student paper" - the Baro is not the student paper of OSU, claims to the contrary notwithstanding. It's (mostly) financially independent, accepting no student fees, and it makes a constant point of claiming to be a professional paper. The Baro staff (and advisor) have long been insistent that the paper is in fact not beholden to students - and if that's the case, it's not a student newspaper. The Baro can't have it both ways. If it wants community participation (above and beyond the new and pretty cool ISOSU column), then it needs to be a genuine member of the OSU community - which means being accessible and responsive to the members of said community. As it stands, it's trying to have its cake and eat it too, and as a result it's starving. The only thing keeping it alive is tradition. If I were an advertiser, I'd be pulling my dollars as fast as possible after seeing the train wreck that the onetime best paper in the nation has become.

On the other hand, Rachel, your suggestion does seem made with genuine hope and goodwill. It would be great if people joined the Baro staff and contributed. It's a lot harder to criticize something you have ownership of.

Hey - maybe that's the deal: The students of OSU don't feel like they have ownership of the paper. Imagine that....

Civic Journalism

I knew this would come up sooner or later in the context of both the Lebanon situation and the Daily Barometer, so I want to take a second and introduce the idea of civic journalism, also known as public journalism.

Specifically, I was prompted by this comment at LT's blog by Express reporter Larry Coonrod, speaking for himself about the role of journalists:

Our job is to fairly and accurately report the facts surrounding the issue and let our readers make up their own minds.

This is, in a sense, absolutely uncontroversial. It is orthodox to journalism. It's an idea that has, in no small amount, defined an era of journalism, from roughly WWII onward. Implicit in this comment is a belief in the ability of journalists to be neutral.

That idea also happens to be problematic. The world has changed significantly in that time, as has humankind's understanding of ourselves and our societies. That idea, however, has not changed.

I am thinking of Howard Zinn's book (and DVD) You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train.

The world today is a moving train. No question about that.

As I wrote about the Barometer situation:

Journalists, like everyone else, bring to work with them the sum of their experiences and their values – and are therefore not the neutral or objective actors that ancient media theory hold them to be.

This, of course, holds just as true for the Lebanon Express and Albany Democrat-Herald as it does for the Barometer.

No one can completely remove themselves and their values from their work. Every decision made about what to cover, and how, and who to ask for quotes, and where to do research - all of those reflect in some sense both professional values and personal values.

If journalists are no longer the neutral, objective actors they used to be, if they must take a position, then what position should they take?

Enter Civic Journalism:

The civic journalism movement (also known as public journalism) is, according to professor David K. Perry of the University of Alabama, an attempt to abandon the notion that journalists and their audiences are spectators in political and social processes. In its place, the civic journalism movement seeks to treat readers and community members as participants. With a small, but growing following, civic journalism has become as much of an ideology as it is a practice.

I actually think that the DH and also the Corvallis Gazette-Times are doing a good job of opening themselves up to the public in some ways (see the community forums of the DH and the 10-part series on Corvallis at the GT). It's harder for a smaller paper like the Lebanon Express to do so, but I'd like to see it nonetheless.

Then there is the Daily Barometer. Of all of the aforementioned newspapers, the Baro needs to be the most responsive to the community, and needs to allow for the most engagement on the part of its readers.

Needless to say, it is not. In fact, I would go so far as to say the Baro is digging its own grave in the long term if it refuses to acknowledge the nature of its own existence and instead pretend it's somehow removed from the community. That position is increasingly untenable.

I understand the desire for editorial independence (though the Barometer does not have it even by their own definition). But opening up the paper's internal workings/production process to readers (and staff!) and increasing community participation does not have to undermine that independence - as long as the integrity of the editorial staff is solid. Right now, of course, the integrity of the editorial staff is under question.

What is the Barometer going to do to (re)gain credibility among its audience?

How is the Express going to envision its own role in the slow-motion meltdown of the Lebanon School Board? How is the community going to view the Express?

Civic Journalism provides good answers to those questions.

The Daily Barometer: WTF?

I'm seriously starting to wonder what's going on over there.

First the Barometer has to subcontract the story about Saturday's protest at Reser to a professional reporter - what's that all about?

Second, I just read this thing which I think is supposed to be an editorial... but I'm confused. Even editorials are supposed to be checked before they are published, and this is so incoherent and self-serving I am having trouble believing no one raised any objections as it went through the editing process.

Either that or the Barometer is taking too many clues from Tim Russert.

In any case, it's not pretty:

The Barometer, though it works to facilitate discussion on campus, is not a public forum. The Barometer remains independent of the university and is able to deny publication of any material submitted.

This is the opening line of the editorial. Not only is it wrong*, but starting out with this is a big 'fuck you' to just about everyone: "We'll provide lip service towards serving the community, but you can't make us do anything. Neener neener neener!"

[*While the Barometer does not take student fee dollars, it does receive plenty of financial compensation from the university in the form of free rent and utilities and the salaries of at least three professional faculty members, including Frank Ragulsky, the Director of Student Media and the primary Barometer staff adviser.]

Next, the editorial mischaracterizes the debate:

There are two sides of this debate. There are community members who have been offended by the Barometer's coverage of the "Blackout Reser" event and there are community members who are offended that their school spirit has been called into question.

I have an aversion to claiming there are two sides to an issue. There are almost always more, and I really don't like seeing the Barometer reinforce the she said/he said model of journalism, where every conflict is placed into a neat, preexisting narrative that never has more than two sides and is almost always unrealistic.

But more importantly, I'm not sure anyone is calling anyone's 'school spirit' into question. More like we are calling into question folks' refusal to listen to and learn from people of color, or to take seriously any claim that might require either introspection or a change in behavior.

Furthermore, I'm not sure "coverage" is the right word - it's more like the lack thereof combined with a set of responses from the editorial staff that seem transparently self-serving.

Material submitted by those not affiliated with the Barometer must be less than 300 words, submitted as a letter to the editor and deemed fit for publication.

Uh, unless this is a previously unannounced change in policy, the Barometer has previously run op-eds that are well over 300 words in length by students, staff and faculty alike. Either this is new or a lie - and I'd like to know which.

Some consistency here would be nice - I have long had the sense that the Barometer wants to have their cake and eat it too by claiming independence from the university community while still claiming to be the source of campus news. Frankly, it's not possible to do both - either the Barometer is a member of the campus community, meaning that it genuinely responds to community concerns, or it's not**, in which case it should stop claiming such status.

We are doing our best to continue the discussion respectfully.

Because opening an online forum in which all comments are a priori approved is the height of taking responsibility for creating a respectful space. From what I've seen, there's no communication going on there whatsoever, just extended rants that don't address each other. I believe it would be possible to create a moderated forum in which respectful, constructive discussion could take place. The Barometer has not done that.

If you, as a member of the community that we cover, feel offended or hurt by any material in The Daily Barometer, we urge you to first contact us.

We cannot represent students unless they first represent themselves to us. As of yet, we have not been asked to respond.

I don't want to discount the possibility that this will work, but I am highly skeptical. Perhaps it's because every time something like this happens, the Barometer asks people to come to the mountain, rather than actually reach out and make an effort to listen - and when people do attempt to reach the Barometer staff, they find it closed off, cliquish and unwilling to really listen (I am speaking from both personal and second-hand experience). It smacks of a sense of privilege about their place in the community, privilege that I think is increasingly assumed and not earned.

And of course there is the obligatory plug, the one that accentuates just how much the Barometer wants to be independent of any responsibility to the community and yet have the community rely on them:

As students, as student editors and those who continue to strive toward the goals of being a well-read, relevant publication, we hope that you would come to us first.

**If the Barometer is not a member of the campus community, if it is not the campus paper, then it should be truly independent of the university, which means it needs to handle its own accounting (which is currently done someone who is paid at least partly by student fee money), it needs to pay rent for use of the on-campus space, it needs to pay its own utilities, and it needs to pay the salaries of its advisers if it wants to keep them. The Daily Emerald down at the University of Oregon does all those things and is, therefore, truly independent of the university. The Barometer is not, and should not be allowed to claim that status.

I've been waiting for years for that conversation to happen.

***Final note: Another way to look at this is that the staff really has no idea of how the public views the paper. If I were the newspaper, I would start a campaign to educate the campus community on the basics of journalism. It might serve to soften the response because all too often, it seems like the staff is doing what they think is right based on journalism standards - standards the larger community is unaware of.

Game, Set, Match: Reader 1, Barometer 0

A letter in a recent Daily Barometer....

Egregious Errors

In the Barometer's October 26 editorial regarding the October 5 article "Student section... color selection" and Renée Roman Nose's October 26 column "Blackface: what's your opinion?" the editorial staff apologized for their ignorance regarding the historical use of blackface and asked for further discussion on campus and in the Barometer.

To quote: "To all students, we challenge you to contribute and participate actively, with open minds, to the campus conversation. [...] It is important for a thriving student media that all students participate in the conversation. [...] We actually do want to hear what we do wrong. We want to improve as we strive to act professionally in working toward career goals."

I was happy to see that the Barometer staff was desiring a continued discussion regarding this issue.

However, on Wednesday night I was informed by my friend and Barometer columnist, Luke Sugie, that the Barometer would not be printing a column he submitted because the editorial staff had decided they would no longer be printing op-eds regarding the October blackout at Reser Stadium.

The Barometer made an egregious error by printing an image that renders blackface, but it seems that instead of continuing a dialogue as promised on October 26, the editorial staff has instead decided to censor their columnists.

This decision marks not only an affront to those who care about injustices - both current and historical - against people of color, but also an affront to public discourse. The answer to a bad decision isn't to silence discussion of it, but instead to foster more discussion.

I hope the Barometer reverses its policy of not printing op-eds regarding this issue - for the sake of democratic discussion, for the sake of dialoging about racism, and for the sake of the professionalism of its staff.

Michael J. Faris
Instructor
Department of English

Just to be clear, it's a common defense among newspaper editors that 'the answer to bad speech is more speech' (see here). In this case, apparently the Baro felt that censoring someone was a better idea than printing criticism of the paper.

And for the record, whoever posted the letters online apparently did not bother with anything as mundane as checking the formatting. Sad.

The Barometer's Amazing Lack of Professionalism

I submitted an op-ed awhile back that, had it been printed, would have run around the 1st or 2nd of November, but neither the Baro or the GT decided to run it. While I am not terribly bothered by the decision - I know the writing could use some work and of course it is the decision of a paper's editorial staff to run submissions or not - I am less than enamored of the way the Baro handled it: They didn't.

As in, I sent it off and apparently addressed it to a black hole. The GT at least had the courtesy to say no.

Anyway, in light of Michael's letter and post as well as Luke's post detailing his own little affair with the Barometer's amazing lack of professionalism this year, I'm going to run what I wrote here:

Barometer Should Have Known Better

The OSU Daily Barometer's admission that they need to do better when it comes to listening to the OSU campus (see The Daily Barometer, “Examining Offenses,” 10-26-07) is too little and too late.

Every couple of years the Barometer runs something incredibly offensive or ignorant, often around race or religion; rarely do they actually bother to respond to the subsequent outrage or criticisms, often hiding behind the implied claim that they bear zero responsibility for the speech of their columnists.

I'm glad to to see that this time is different, that at least the editorial staff ran a response. However, the failure of the editorial to adequately address the issue suggests a lack of understanding of the nature of the problem, and a problem that outlasts the high-turnover Barometer staff – but not Frank Ragulsky, the Barometer's faculty adviser.

It is my opinion that these sorts of mistakes could easily be avoided if the Barometer's editorial staff had some sort of journalism-oriented diversity or cultural competency training. But they don't. When I served on the Student Media Committee, I pushed for the editorial staff to participate in just this sort of training. But I was rebuffed, and it was obvious that no one, including Mr. Ragulsky, saw such training as beneficial or necessary.

By all accounts, Mr. Ragulsky is an excellent advisor. However, he has been the constant throughout all the incidents that have occurred for a long time, long before I ever came to Corvallis. I find it extremely troubling that he consistently fails to show any interest in educating the staff of a college newspaper about the intersection of journalism and diversity.

Journalists, like everyone else, bring to work with them the sum of their experiences and their values – and are therefore not the neutral or objective actors that ancient media theory hold them to be. It would be nice if the sum of their experiences included some awareness that would allow them to avoid the sorts of mistakes that seem to occur with a disturbing regularity.

So I propose three things, hoping they will provide long-term solutions:

First, that Mr. Ragulsky personally endeavor to have his staff participate in some form of training that addresses the intersection of journalism and diversity at least once every year.

Second, that the Student Media Committee take a more active role in overseeing the newspaper. As it stands, the committee is largely a rubber stamp, having little to no role beyond hiring for a mere seven positions for all of student media. Instead, the Committee members should have unfettered access to information, giving them them the ability to decide for themselves what information is relevant. As it stands, Mr. Ragulsky tends to control the flow of information to such a degree that it forces committee members to do his bidding.

Third, that The Daily Barometer institute a public editor to write columns detailing the internal decision-making processes of the newspaper, as well as receiving and responding to reader criticism of the newspaper. Such a position could provide a wonderful training tool for journalists and editors at a university with no official journalism program.

I suggest these things out of frustration and sadness at seeing a paper I have long been enamored of continue to make offensive, avoidable mistakes no matter who fulfills the role of editor-in-chief. I would like nothing more than to see The Daily Barometer take a more active role as a member of the OSU community rather than hide beyond decades-old ideas about the proper behavior of journalists.

Where's the Happy Ending?

Jason Prothero leaves a pretty good comment on the Barometer and Blackface post, and I wanted to address it with its own post.

First of all, Jason, thanks for the comment. Let's see what's going on:

I guess I'm saying that the normal person who goes to Beaver games doesn't think of that as a first thought.

Why is ignorance of this historical fact normal? Is it not worth knowing? If it's not, how do you justify that? I agree with you that most people don't necessarily know about blackface, but there is certainly a reason for that. Is that reason, whatever it is, a good one? Or does - as I think - that reason have to do with a historically white-centric curriculum in schools and a tendency to marginalize the suffering of people of color?

I think here something has to be said about intent. Clearly the intent had nothing to do with racism. Once they know people are offended it should stop. And of course being ignorant to it is no excuse, but intent should be in there somewhere.

I have noted elsewhere that while intent is important (indeed, most of the arguments defending the presence of black facepaint hinge on intent), I think effect (or how the action is received and understood) is also incredibly important.

Imagine this response to the Baro's running of the photo and the Facebook group:

1. The photo and Facebook stuff appear.

2. Someone points out how the image and idea reference a piece of history that's maybe not worth emulating - i.e. blackface and minstrel shows.

3. Proponents of black facepaint read the provided links and hold a discussion on Facebook, in person, and in the pages of the Barometer as to why they want to use black facepaint, and how they are very conscious of what it means and intend no disrespect. They request to hear the opinions of others, making sure to listen to the comments of people of color.

At this point it can go two ways:

4a: The discussion is great, and the folks who raised the issue in the first place understand that those folks painting their faces black understand and respect the history behind. Perhaps black facepaint at OSU games takes on a whole new meaning, one that honors and respects the history in question. Or perhaps the idea is dropped and orange facepaint is used.

4b: The discussion doesn't go so well, and the objections to black facepaint stand. Some folks still use it, but some don't, understanding how it's hurtful towards others.

Frankly, I'd have been happier with either outcome, because they both involve an element of learning about why this is an issue. Instead, we get comments on Facebook that are pretty clearly racist and reveling in their ignorance, or simply claim that since "I" don't see the problem, no one else should either (which is really not that different from reveling in one's ignorance).

No wonder people are upset - it's not that it happened (though certainly I am of the opinion that it should not have) but that the (mostly) white folks who are doing this have refused to listen to any dissenting voices, and indeed have been pretty effective in marginalizing them.

Sounds like you're reaching a bit. They should apologize, not encourage that behavior again and use it as a learning experience. No need to take it too far.

Agreed - except that in the case of many of the Facebook folks and the comments left on the Gazette-Times website, there are few if any apologies or acknowledgments. Instead, there are lots of complaints that people should just "stop whining and get over it."

What is too far? In this case, it appears that too far is asking for white folks to do some learning and perhaps admit to a mistake.

Compare that to these suggestions (if you want some that maybe "go too far": Black facepaint should be banned from games, the Beavers should stop wearing black entirely, the editor, advisor and all other staff responsible for the photo should be fired, the students who wear black facepaint and/or leave racist comments on Facebook should expelled or forced to take a class on racism... I could go on, but you get the point. I have yet to hear anyone advocating any of these suggestions.

What's being asked of white people is not a lot, not really. And yet some of us still react like it's the end of the world.

Say hello to white privilege.

And Jason - I have read Zinn's A People's History of the United States cover to cover. For the record =)

On the Barometer Editorial Regarding Blackface etc.

I have gone back and forth regarding this editorial all weekend.

On the one hand, I'm very glad to see the Baro address the issue at all. This incident involved not a columnist but a staff decision, so I can't say I'm all that surprised (but yes, still somewhat surprised) at the choice to cover the issue in some fashion.

On the other hand, I think it's kind of a weasely editorial. Let me explain.

The editorial starts with this:

We've spent a week talking about it, and it's created quite a stir on campus. The editorial board of The Daily Barometer felt that the matter required more than just simply running the column submitted by staff columnist Renée Roman Nose.

A few weeks ago, we ran a news story that included a graphic of a college-aged male wearing all black. He was also wearing black face paint. This graphic was designed in the name of school spirit, but it didn't come off that way to some members of our campus community.

It came off as offensive. It could be seen as a throwback to minstrel-era comedians mocking African heritage.

We explain this not in ignorance, but in order to pose a question.

A few things:

1. In the first paragraph, they note that they felt a greater response was needed than just Renee's column, but that doesn't explain why they held her column. We'll return to that decision later in the editorial.

2. They note that they are not explaining why the blackface is offensive out of ignorance - whose ignorance? It seems clear that the Baro staff was ignorant about this issue since they ran the photo in the first place. The ignorance of the reader? Well, if OSU students are so busy defending the black facepaint on Facebook, then it seems they are a wee bit ignorant as well. So - who is ignorant, again?

That sentence sounds like a way to weasel out of taking responsibility for the staff's own ignorance.

Moving on:

More than a week after this story ran in The Daily Barometer, Roman Nose submitted a column explaining and apologizing for the misdeed that the staff of the Barometer had perpetrated.

In literal shock and dismay that we hadn't heard about this issue before our columnist submitted something she intended to have printed, we chose - as an editorial board - to hold her column until further notice.

Holding Roman Nose's column was not a decision made to silence the voices of those offended. It was not a decision made to hide the something we did wrong.

It was a decision made so that we could appropriately and accurately respond to the campus community - with the opinions of Barometer staff members, community members and especially the opinions and understanding given to us by Renée Roman Nose.

OK. So the Baro's editorial board held the column because they were caught by surprise - due to their ignorance - and wanted to have a chance to formulate a response before they ran her column.

That's weaselly. And kind of pathetic. Again, we have a suggestion that the Baro staff was ignorant about what they did, reluctant as they may be to admit it. Second, we have a pretty sad use of their power: They held Renee's column because it would make them look bad, and they wanted a chance to come up with some sort of response before it was printed.

If I, as a columnist or reader, or as a subject of a news story, were to be in the same position, it's highly unlikely that the Baro would extend the same offer to me. I think this was a case of panicked CYA, and a shameful one at that, since the Baro's learning from Roman Nose's column hinged in no way on whether or not it had been printed. Better the Baro print her column when she submitted it and deal with the fact that they fucked up, stepping into the conversation when they learned enough to have something useful to say.

Also, the fact that they did not hear about this issue before the column's submission suggests a few things:

One, that they don't have any connections to the communities that get upset about things like racism on the front page, the implications of which are not good, since the communities were likely people of color and their anti-racist allies and friends.

Two, that people in said communities did not go the Baro staff with their concerns. Speaking from experience, I can safely suggest that this is the case because the Baro has historically been very unwelcoming to anyone the hyper-cliquish staff deems outsiders. Outsiders, of course, being anyone who is not friends with the staff.

Next, the editorial contains of the lamest statements I've ever heard:

Members of the community have asked how it is possible that we could have completely missed the boat on how that was offensive.

To this we ask, couldn't that be a good thing that the era of offensive mockery is now far enough behind us that it was not present in our active memory?

Could you display your privilege any more prominently? It's not quite inducing vomiting yet. But it's close.

Seriously.

Here's what I heard: "Isn't it a good thing we are so privileged to have no knowledge of blackface?"

Never mind the fact that every other year, some dumbshit fraternity makes national news for hosting a blackface party. That's just news - and why would the members of a newspaper's editorial board want to keep up on something as useless as news?

Or how about this: "Isn't it a good thing we are ignorant of this aspect of the history of racism in America?"

For fuck's sake, Baro. Just because you know something about history - be it blackface or the Armenian genocide of 1915 - does not mean you endorse or condone said historical fact.

Also, that is a profoundly anti-intellectual argument in that it portrays ignorance of history as a good thing. Coming from a newspaper located on a college campus, that's kind of....bad.

The fact that the editorial employs that poor of an argument shows just how badly they are grasping at any excuse not to own their ignorance on this one.

The editorial closes with a plea:

After a week of pondering and asking ourselves what the correct response would be, we understand the correct response is to open our minds, open our doors and hear what our campus is telling us. We understand that an apology for the unintentional offense was necessary.

Promoting a culture of fear and lack of inclusiveness goes against the lessons learned in difference, power and discrimination courses and the lessons we accumulate as contributing members of the campus community.

It is important for a thriving student media that all students participate in the conversation. Please, write a letter to the editor. Stop and visit the Barometer office. Give us a call.

We actually do want to hear what we do wrong. We want to improve as we strive to act professionally in working toward career goals.

I am of two minds about this.

On the one hand, I do not want to discard what I think is a genuine request on the Baro's part. This represents an opportunity for growth and learning, and that's good. I hope students take them up on this.

On the other, the Baro is constantly inviting people to come talk to them.... but they almost always fail to listen.

The Baro staff, in my experience, has always been a closed clique of people. I'm certainly not the only person to notice this. So historical experience makes me very skeptical of this newfound desire for openness.

Overall, I think the editorial was pretty poor on reasoning and responsibility. While it officially apologized, it tripped over itself to avoid any sort of blame (and perhaps the attendant consequences?), and it shows a dangerous lack of understanding on the relevant issues.

Plus, the decision to hold Roman Nose's column comes across - and was - a poor move designed almost solely to cover their collective asses.

The Baro needs to do better.

GT Covers the Barometer/Blackface Issue

I will have more to say over the weekend about this - probably lots more - but for now just read the story, and if you're brave, wade into the comments. It's ugly.

h/t Roxy.