Teeder11
-
Posts
4,594 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
77
Posts posted by Teeder11
-
-
I am a proud J-School grad; it was a sad, sad mess to watch that program be butchered alive.
Ditto!
-
Teeder:
You made my point. The Herald never put its own journalist on the story. Instead, it relied on the AP's report for a story in its own backyard. As far as Dennis' editorial, it handled Kelley's administration with kid gloves. Reminiscent of the Fargo Forum going to bat for Chapman for years (even doing Chapman's dirty work), only to result in both Chapman and the Forum being presented later as the corrupt entities they truly were.
The Herald can do so much better, Teeder.
I wasn't defending/criticizing the Herald or Doug Barrett with KNOX radio, or Neil Carlson with KVLY-TV, or name any reporter with WDAZ, or any other hometown media who didn't do the story first. My clarification was that it did appear in the local media before it did appeared in the Williston Herald.
Now I will offer some context that will border on defense of the local media (all local media; everyone seems obsessed with the newspaper): Scoops happen all the time in the media. This was quite certainly an AP exclusive, or AP scoop. My hunch is that local reporters had no idea that this was even taking place at UND. Yes, that is sad, but things like that fall through the cracks all the time. I am sure there are a lot of things going on at UND, or Altru/Mayo or American Crystal Sugar, or the State Mill, or Noridian or the Alerus Center or the Air Base, etc. that the local media does not know about and that the public would love to know about. So, if this was an AP exclusive, there is no way that the local media was going to find out until the story was done (if they didn't stumble upon it themselves). Once the story was ready, then and only then, was it shared with all AP member newspapers and media that cared to run it. The Grand Forks local media jumped on it right away as it was a story originating in their coverage areas. No cover up, no apologist motives on the media's part. It was just a case where one media (AP) got a tip or got info that others did not. They (AP) did the story first and the others followed on.
-
What else would one expect from a sociologist? Talk about a worthless area where the members are all paranoid (with good reason) about being laughed at behind their backs in the elevator over the fact that sociology is not a "real science."
Be nice to Goon, at least he is doing something productive with his sociology degree.
-
2
-
-
Why can't they, that is a very good question no one would even have to travel and there wouldn't be an unnecessary expense of 6,000.00 on the state tab.
Wouldn't it be subject to North Dakota Open Meeting Laws, then? That is something NCAA doesn't want, but it might not matter at this point, if all they are going to say is "Thanks, but, no thanks. Deal stands!"
-
Star,
Point of clarification... The original story about Caleb Warner and his case with UND was published as an Associated Press Story on March 6, 2011. It actually appeared in the Herald, the next day on Monday, March 7, with a photo image of Caleb Warner. Two days later, on the same day that the Williston Herald reporter wrote his piece, Tom Dennis came out with his own take on the situation in an editorial, which you can read below in its entirety. The Williston Herald reporter and Tom Dennis cited the same AP story as their main source for information to form their opinions.
Tom Dennis Editorial, March 9, 2011:
Should UND reopen the case of Caleb Warner, the former student who was expelled from school for reasons that now have been cast into doubt? Let's put the answer this way: UND should consider reopening the case.
Based on the story in Monday's Herald, there seems to be a fair chance that an injustice was done and that Warner was wrongly disciplined ("UND refuses to reopen expelled student case,"
But make no mistake: That's ultimately for UND to decide. Cases such as these that involve privacy laws always are tough for the media to report. Readers typically get the aggrieved person's side of the story, but the rules prevent the other side - in this case, UND's side - from fully presenting its case.
So, there may well be more to the story than was reported in the newspaper. If that's the case, then UND has every right to let the expulsion stand.
But the school should review the circumstances before it makes a final decision. That's especially true because campus disciplinary hearings don't give an accused the same due-process rights that he or she would get in a courtroom - including the right to various appeals.
That raises the odds of a miscarriage of justice. UND should be diligent about discovering whether that happened here.
"The school told Caleb Warner not to set foot on campus for three years, after a student relations committee ruled in February 2010 that he violated four sections of UND's code of student life, including 'violation of criminal or civil laws,'" the story reported.
Warner was never arrested and never charged. "He admitted having sex with the alleged victim, a UND student at the time, but has maintained it was consensual."
And not long after Warner had to leave campus, "Grand Forks police issued an arrest warrant against the alleged victim for filing a false report to law enforcement. Warner asked for a rehearing based on new information, but was denied for reasons that didn't jibe with his request."
There the matter stands.
Clearly, questions remain that the story didn't answer. What was the nature of Warner's other three actions that brought the censure of the student relations committee? Did alcohol play a role in the incident or incidents? How strongly do the police suspect that the alleged victim lied?
Perhaps most tellingly, why do the officers suspect that about her? Based solely on the news story, there isn't enough information to exonerate Warner. But there's certainly enough to raise questions about his case, which is why it became a news story in the first place.
Harvey Silverglate, a civil rights attorney and expert on college disciplinary rules, echoes that thought when he's quoted in the story.
"Law enforcement agencies do not lightly charge complainants in sexual assault cases with filing a false report," Silverglate said.
"It seems to be that the campus tribunal has an obligation - surely moral and ethical and arguably constitutional as well - to reopen the case to examine the basis for the criminal justice's system of filing a false statement."
Most readers likely reacted as Silverglate did when confronted with the facts in the story. That doesn't mean Silverglate or the readers are right. But it does mean UND must weigh the evidence with care before declaring that they're wrong.
- Tom Dennis for the Herald
-
Thats a hell of an accusation. Its one thing for some anonymous blowhard like me to speculate on a message board. Its an entirely different thing for the House Leader to publicly accuse the University of North Dakota of backdooring him and the rest of the legislature. He better have some proof (and he may for all I know) fast. If he doesn't he is bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase" poisoning the well."
Amen, brother.
-
Teeder:
Are you the very same sports journalist who recently wrote an opinion piece supporting Kelley's position? Does that mean that your journalistic integrity and standing relies on Kelley and other's statements? Good luck with that.
No. Not even close. Good luck with that.
-
A communications fortress around Twamley Hall is being built. People like Alice Hoffert had too many friends in Bismarck that were on a first-name basis. Now, any informal state questions have to go through Kelley or Kelley's new VP of Public Relations, which hasn't been announced yet.
How convenient that a new VP of Public Relations position was created just before Alice was sacked. Guess the new PR person will come in just at the right time for the name change.
This just in ....
The so-called "new" VP of Public Relations position is not new, in fact, it's the very same job that was once held by Don Koijch, who is now back working for the University of Illinois Alumni Association and Foundation. The position was "turned off" when Don left. Now the President, as is his pervue, has elected to turn it back on.
This move was being seriously talked about long before Alice was let go without cause and long before new VP Lori Reesor was brought in. This was not a quid pro quo situation as is alleged.
Peter Johnson is currently the head of PR at UND. All "informal state questions" have always gone through Mr. Johnson's office and Don Koijch before that and Dave Vorland before that. This is no change.
Now back to regular programming.
-
1
-
-
Herald Link to Kelley's Statements on KFGO
Considering that Kelley's administration almost certainly helped orchestrate the NCAA statement, should anyone be surprised that Kelley was "not surprised."
^^^^
-
If it is the same players, coaches and teams at the same school, how do you say it is a brand new program that did not previously exist?
Exactly.... I can go on and on and on citing examples of universities, big and small, that have changed their nickname for a myriad reasons, and in no case does the NCAA, the media or anyone start the clock back at zero as far as the number of regional, conference or national titles a school has earned. One example, and I repeat only one, and there are hundreds more, The Syracuse Orangemen won three national basketball titles (2 pre-NCAA tourney and one in 2003 in the NCAA tourney.) Since then, the school's athletic program has changed its name. They are still regarded by everyone as having won three Division I b-ball titles. No change. Nada, nil, zilch.
-
Truth? By who's standard? Was there a disgusting float in a homecoming parade? Yes. Truth. Was it 30 years ago? Yes. Truth. Guess which matters to the NCAA and other "enlightened" types. Everyone has their "truth" that they operate from and are closed-minded to anything but.
The NCAA has their version of truth supplied by partisans of their ilk and moniker supporters have their version supplied by that side of the fence. That's where this gets to quagmire mode, as it is.
Agreed. Good points.
-
I'm partisan to the name
Everyone who wants to keep the name should contact the NCAA about the TRUTH
memmert@ncaa.org
You don't say? We wouldn't have guess that. That said, I contacted the NCAA to let them know the truth. Let's hope it works.
-
& to make all you political hacks even happier - I think Carlson will be better off than most who did nothing to save the name - you folks are no better than the other minority that got us here in the 1st place
Everyone who wants to keep the name should contact the NCAA about the TRUTH
Do you know the meaning of the word "partisan," because you throw it around like you've never heard the phrase "pot calling the kettle black."
-
If that's the case, then that flaming jackass Leigh Jeanotte would have and should have been fired years ago.
What's with the personal attacks! Though I agree with your sentiment, why would you resort to calling Leigh a name like that? I violently disagree with Leigh when it comes to the nickname and logo, and I have told him as much. But nowhere in my dealings with him have I ever thought that he acted as you describe him just because of an ideological difference. Leigh is a nice person and a gentleman who has strong opinions. I think they are misguided opinions rooted in fallacious ideology but that does not make him any less of a person. Wow! We are better than this, aren't we?
-
OK folks, here's how it works:
Just because someone uses unapproved language in this forum is not cause for all of you to reply (copy) it and effectively repeat it.
Just report it using the "Report" button.
The posts have been dealt with, as will the initial offender.
Amen, brother.
-
The NCAA does, at least, have a rationale that I can understand with the whole domination of culture and appropriation of culture, etc. I don't agree with it, obviously, but I at least can understand the argument and begrudgingly assign some ostensible credibility to it, at least in terms of logic. Where the NCAA loses everything is when it employs the haphazard double-standards and imputes concepts such as "hostile" and "abusive" to native nicknames. One may think that the usage of native nicknames may be tantamount to employing some sort of dominion over another set of human beings. However, such usage is not hostile and abusive. These are two different positions that do not mesh at all. If the NCAA is going to object on the dominion/appropriation of culture theory, the supposed wrongfulness can not be purged by the so-called namesake tribe exception or by any other standard. Throwing the hostile and abusiveness business in there just clouds the matter even more. If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for all and the NCAA needs to have the backbone to enforce the policy uniformly or not at all.
The NCAA is the only player and UND seeks to be part of it by necessity only. The NCAA really should be broken up into various regional entities. The sooner the legal issues on this get resolved the better and the Governor and legislature need to take charge now and aggressively, yet diplomatically, advocate for the nickname. Sitting idle would be the absolute worst thing, in my opinion.
+1 Excellent post! I already used up my positive vote on your post, so I thought I would send another your way.
-
Carolina is not the name of an Indian tribe, Dakota is. I wouldn't put any trust in the NC$$ acting as rationally as you think they would.
True, but "Carolina" (taken from the Latin word for Charles (Carolus) honoring King Charles I of England) in North and South Carolina originates from a human source, such as "Dakota" does for North and South Dakota. I wonder if the descendents of King Charles are offended by the Tarheels' and Gamecocks' abusing their heritage? I ask that rhetorically, with tongue planted firmly in cheek. I understand your greater point that nothing the NCAA does can be described as rational, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that an institution cannot use a derivation of its own state name, and by extension, its own name. I think UND has another case to be made, as the word "Dakota" is more than a name of a tribe in that it is also a word meaning "friend" or "ally."
What a mess! Thanks NCAA.
Wish you weren't the only game in town, because it really sucks that we are so desirous to be part of an organization for which we have such collective disdain!-
1
-
1
-
-
Where are they building this??
Open land just west of the Chester Fritz Auditorium along University Avenue.
-
No problem UND Fan and Siouxbooster. Thanks for seeing it for what it was, just additional insight.
-
I agree with much of what both of your posters are saying. I think the very minor divergence of opinion is where we draw the line -- if there is any line to be drawn at all -- of journalistic ethics. I would draw the line at a member of the press using his/her editorial access to pontificate repeatedly on one side of one subject. I believe insertion of themselves into a story by the editor of a daily news media source (a media source upon which resides much public trust) is unethical. Not illegal. And since this is a private for-profit media outlet, the public are free to stop purchasing the paper, and stop reading the paper, if they wish.
The wonderful free market allows for both pontification on one side, and refusal to listen on the other side. If it hurts business, then the media outlet will have to address the matter (or not -- its ultimately the private media outlet's decision).
Ethics is a funny, fuzzy term. And I appreciate views on the presence of ethics, and the imaginary ethical lines which can be drawn, will differ.
But I tend to beleive the Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Dennis do not merely hold jobs as editors because they can accurately spot punctuation and spelling errors better than others. These men ( and most editors everwhere) are gatekeepers of information. they keep a hawk-like watch over their writers. Part of their job is dedicated to hunting down editorial content in news stories. Part of their job is to attempt, as best as can be accomplished, to erradicate bias from news writing. Part of their job is to make sure that their reporters, and through them their newspaper, do not become part of the story. Once the newspaper reporter and writer become part of the story, they compromise the silent contract that exists between the media and the citizenry in this country: The newspaper will tell you the facts, and the citizens can assume that the facts are not tainted by pique or gain or interest on the part of the newspaper. Part of their job is to ensure that the dignity and integrity of the newspaper is not compromised by "taking sides."
The editorial slice of the newspaper is the refuge from this contract. But this refuge is not absolute. The silent contract cannot be simply turned off when the reader flips to the editorial section. And while citizens like myself are more than willing to let any editor say what they wish in the editorial section. Content is lovingly protected on the editorial page. We can disagree with the content, but we generally allow newspaper editors the freedom to print the editorial.
So where is the line? When does the campaign by the editors compromise the central mission the media outlet -- providing the news? This is NO small item, in my opinion, because most nations in the world do not enjoy freedom to access of unbiased and uncompromised news. So if the editors are engaging in a whole-hearted campaign -- and now inserting themselves into the story and into the narrative of the event -- that is a problem. If this editorial crusade can be so easily linked to the nature and content of the alleged "straight" news stories on this same topic (the nickname) elsewhere in the paper, their editorial actions are now calling into question their editorial role in ensuring unbiased and uncompromised news coverage.
And I believe that as a major source of news and information in this region, the editors have a duty (small "d" duty, not a legal duty) to the community in which they serve to protect the news. Their continued crusade and failure to protect the news from being compromised (and in probably most cases blessing the compromising of the news through their "straight" editing), is ethically questionable.
And they would both be much better served leaving this issue alone instead of writing chicken little panic editorials about UND scheduling woes (on the same day UND announces an ESPN basketball game contract with Kansas, btw). A newsroom is no place for panic and fearmongering, let alone desperate campaigns. The people who rely upon the news media deserve better.
I see what you are saying.
I think it is because of my intimate knowledge of the way things actually work inside the Herald that it is coloring my perceptions and maybe limiting yours (which is not a slight or a dig at you.) I spent 13 years with the organization and left on very good terms. I was never once made to feel awkward nor ashamed because of my very pro UND Fighting Sioux nickname position. Instead it was just the opposite.
So with that said... please take the following as an attempt to explain how things are set up in the newsroom and not as a means to shoot holes in your opinion.
Jacobs and Dennis are not editors in the sense that most people associate newspaper "editors" to be. They are not fact checkers or spelling checkers or story assignment editors, per se. There are other mid-level newsroom editors who fulfill those roles. The mid-level editors are the ones who make the hour-by-hour, day-by-day decisions in the Herald newsroom. They are people who you've never heard of, but who actually wield more influence internally in the newsroom than Jacobs or Dennis. As an aside, every one of these mid-level editors (city editor, night editor, managing editor) are the biggest Fighting Sioux supporters you'd ever want to meet. Go figure.
So anyway, Jacobs role is more on the publishing side. His day and week is spent worrying about the bottomline and how all of the individual departments affect that result. The newsroom is among at least 10 different departments at the Herald and it is about at the midpoint as far as number of employees. Some of the others are Advertising, Circulation, AgWeek, Mailroom, IT, Printing Press and Marketing). Jacobs has his fingers in all these areas and has little time for the day to day decision making that it would take to manage the news content of the newspaper. He has the same limited role in the other departments. He is a jack of all trades and master of none, so to speak. He leaves the news decisions up to the mid-level editors. They, with the other Department Heads, make the "Daily Miracle" happen. Jacobs does at times suggest a story that could be done if he hears about something or gets a tip that no one else has already received, but for the most part the editorial decisions of the daily newspaper are left to the mid-level assigning editors. The most involvement that Jacobs has is at the so-called daily "budget huddle" where he gets a brief rundown from the mid-level editors on what is going into the paper the next day. This happens at about 3 p.m. every afternoon and it is more of an FYI to him than anything else. He has been known to suggest changes, suggest new stories or ask that something be held for another day, which is his right as the top dog of the newspaper. The buck stops with him, ultimately. But he absolutely does not have intimate involvement or influence over the reporters as has been suggested.
Tom Dennis has even less influence. His job is simply to write editorials. He has no editing, mentoring or assigning involvement of any kind with reporters. In fact, Tom's editorials are edited for him by the same mid-level news editors that I wrote about earlier, the ones that hold the real influence.
For these reasons, I have no problem with Jacobs or Dennis writing editorials about the nickname -- pro or con-- and I don't really care how many they write nor how much they pile on on a particular day, because I know that their collective influence on the reporting that is done on the news side is nearly nil.
That's my take after spending many years on the inside.
-
2
-
-
How about when a monopolistic entity made up of primarily public institutions tries to censor freedom of speech of a member?
I hate that, too! Damn, NC$$!!!! Let's get 'em, North Dakota.
Go Sioux!
-
Teeder, you can do much better than those statements.
This forum is no different than a coffee group discussion in a small town cafe. There are differing views here and no one is claiming to be a journalist here, nor are we paid for our contributions. Moreover, if some one crosses certain lines, there is immediate feedback and oftentimes correction (of they are tossed from the board). The same can't be said of the Herald.
A newspaper's opinion makers have a much higher level of responsibility to the readers and the community.
There isn't another daily paper in Grand Forks. If there wasn't a monopoly, the Herald would have died long ago, largely because of the public's rejections of the Publisher's values.
That said, I do believe Jacobs is actually much more fair and "moral" than Zaleski of the Forum. Zaleski seems to thrive on demonizing certain people, and canonizing others (like Chapman as an example). Jacobs is careful with his power, as he knows the potential for the Herald to cause polarization in a community. So unlike the Forum which IMHO is people and power-focused, the Herald is more issue focused. Jacob's views - especially those on government - are almost like etched in stone from the '60's, which is why people tire of them so quickly. In contrast, Dennis, to his credit, actually understands that business can be a very good and noble force.
Good points!
Yes, it is true that opinion writers have a little bit more responsibility than, say, the man on the street or the anonymous message board scribe in that they actually put their name on the line with their opinion. True, most newspapers don't identify their editorial writers as up front as the Herald does, but you can still easily find out who the editorial writer is. Not so in other more anonymous forums. So yes you are right on that. But that's where it stops. I still contend that newspaper opinion writers have no more or no less responsibilities on what their opinions are than the man on the street or message board posters. The big one that does exist is that they all must be cautious not to make libelous claims. That's about it.
It is not the Herald's fault it is a monopoly. Many years ago, George Winship invested in a small privately owned river city newsletter and grew it into a dominant source for news, opinion and advertising for many years in the northern Valley. That's the American dream at work. I am sure there were threats to its monopolistic hold along the way, but it was able to thwart them off, again, in the private sector. Now, I am not so naive to think that it's easy to start up a newspaper and compete against an existing giant. But the opportunity is still there for anyone ( I would advise against the traditional newspaper model, though). I do know that the Herald does get public money for being the official public record in the area, but that is something that we the taxpayers vote on. If someone wants to start up a public access publication (online or otherwise) and vie against the Herald for that public money, they are free to do it.
So, in the spirit of full disclosure, I acknowledge that there is public money used by the Herald (and I am sure there was heap of public assistance received by the Herald and many other private sector businesses after the Flood of 1997,) but the fact remains, that it is a private sector, independent business. It will live and die by its ability to attract and maintain readers and advertisers (voting with your pocketbook is the immediate feedback that controls the Herald, akin to the instant checks on a message board that you alluded to) I find it curious that with all the general conservatism and and free market stances that are celebrated here that anyone would begrudge a business its right to think and opine how it wants to.
I just get nervous when there is even a suggestion that anyone in this great country of ours should be censored or somehow have their freedom of speech limited. That's all I am saying in all this. I would fight tooth and nail if anyone tried to do something like that to Siouxsports.com
-
I would consider their editorials ranging into unethical not because of the content, but because of the drumbeat repetition of their editorials on this subject. As an example, each election cycle the editorial board presents the list of canditates which the board / editor supports. I have no problem with that -- an editorial by its very nature is the one rare instance (theoretically) that the editor can take off his journalistic ethical and professional restraint and speak his/her mind and give an opinion.
Often times, the Editorial opinion relates to a top of the week. Often, the Editorial (in theory) will present a coutner-point to a hot issue in a measured and calm, allegedly third-party-outside-opinion. Sometimes the Editorial can give voice to a side of an issue or debate in which one side is unable, or unwilling, to defend a position for themselves in the public discourse. And I don't think there is anything wrong with this process.
Furthermore, I'll go a step beyond and say that as a rule, I think Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Dennis do a very good job picking topics upon which to editorialize, and they do a decent job attempting to present a reasonable discussion. I don't always agree (often strongly disagree) with their opinions -- but I have no problem with the editors expressing their views.
BUT, when does an Editorial opinion, as described by myself above, cross over the dangerous line to journalistic advocacy? I think Mr. Dennis and Mr. Jacobs work very hard, and I am sure that they hammer the importance of ethical journalistic integrity to their younger employees. Consider the example of the political recommendation. What if Mr. Dennis wrote not just one political recommendation editorial, but instead wrote 5, or 6, or 10, all in favor on ne candidate. Every other month, or sometimes every month, Mr. Dennis wrote blistering editorials supporting only one candidate and attacking, frequently, the opposing candidate? What if Mr. Dennis uses his Editorial position to simply mirror and parrot the campaign talking points?
Thus my claim: Mr.s Jacobs and Dennis, and regularly contributing editorial commentator Mr. Omdahl -- are not merely submitting Editorials for the public discourse. They are engaging in a long campaign on one particular issue. And they are not merely presenting their opinion. They are presenting their opinion again, and again, and again, and again, and again. Year after year. Week after week. They have left behind any semblence of journalistic ethical restraint years ago on THIS topic. This year alone, Mr. Dennis and Mr. Jacobs have personally written multiple anti-Sioux name editorials. Then they publish multiple (at least three I can think of) editorial submissions from Mr. Omdahl on the same topic.
Last week, Dennis, Jacobs, and Lloyd all submitted anti-name editorials in one week.
This drum beat, this endless parade of anti-name editorials is when they cross the line from "merely giving their opinion on a matter of import in the public discourse," into advocacy. They are not making recommendations, nor are they taking up the cause of a side whose views and opinions are silenced. They are on a campaign. They are taking up the cause.
And that is unethical (in my opinion).
And my point is -- rather than engage in this repeated unethical journalistic activity, these two experienced and expert newspaper men (and Lloyd), should step away, before their integrity is shredded entirely. The have written all the Editorials they should ever write on this subject. 50? 100? Since the early 1990's? At least? They need to step back and leave the issue to the partisans involved in the fight. Their editorial practice has made THEM a partisan in the fight -- and that is a serious breech of their journalistic integrity and ethics. They have inserted themselves into the story -- and I think if these two otherwise very honorable men took a step back and realized this, they would probably agree.
Good points. Very well thought out and presented as usual.
Where we separate is on the point where you say that "their editorial practice has made them a partisan in the fight -- and that is a serious breech of their journalistic integrity and ethics." Let me back up by saying that you are very correct about Jacobs and Dennis in the first part of your statement about being partisans, and they would fully admit it. But it's the latter part where I specifically take issue.
Jacobs and Dennis are not the beat writers when it comes to the nickname on the news side of the newspaper. They never have been and they never will be. They are the opinion makers on the opinion side of the newspaper, and this includes their incessant rants against the nickname. They always have been and they always will be, I am confident enough to wager. They will never write a nickname news story. And we, who study their every move and who are students of American journalism, no the reason why. The wall between the editorial side of a newspaper and the news side is very high and has few doors. The reporters are the ones tasked with bringing you the news, with, in theory, no opinion. The editorialists are the ones charged with entertaining you or repulsing you with their opinions.
If, and this will never happen, Jacobs or Dennis ever writes a straight nickname news story -- not an editorial, not a column -- but an honest to goodness news story that appears in the news section, then, your claims of lack of journalistic integrity and ethics would ring true.
As long as their opinion, no matter how many times it is states and restated, appears in the opinion section they are fully in their right as individuals in America to express an opinion. Just because they work for a newspaper does not mean they check their 1st Amendment hat at the door. I know you are not suggesting that. Sorry about the hyperbole.
Maybe it's clearer for me to say it this way: I view a newspaper's opinion makers to be just like any other individual or group in America, with the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Now just like anyone else in America, newspapers are fair game to criticism, but in the same light, just like anyone else they are not unethical for stating an opinion over and over and over again. I mean, based on your argument, the vast majority of individual posters here on Siouxsports.com would be considered unethical because day after day after day we present pro-nickname arguments, counter arguments and opinions.
I am curious to learn the difference between a newspaper repeatedly stating an opinion and an individual person doing the same thing. Or maybe you are saying that the Herald is making a bad business decision by keeping up the constant drumbeat against the name. This, I can agree with you on, but again, ethics has nothing to do with it.
-
1
-
-
Personally Brad's work is the only thing worth reading in the Herald anymore, the rest of it's just their liberal slant that I can get on line, also the cheer leading for anything in Grand Forks at City Hall is sickening. I really like his hockey coverage and the Football Guy is pretty good as well.
Ditto!
What Needs to Happen
in UND Nickname
Posted
Extremely. I've wrote many UND nickname articles in my days at UND and then later at the Herald and I always thought it interesting that two polarized sides could see the exact same series of facts, quotes and background text so differently. I would get phone calls, e-mails and, in that day, snail mail letters, about articles from folks on both ends of the nickname debate complaining that their side was wronged, slighted, maligned, marginalized, misquoted, a victim of biased reporting, had facts purposefully omitted, was not given equal column inches, etc. Now, mind you, I am not talking about the sources within these stories, rather these were comments from readers who contacted me and revealed their stance on the issue one way or the other. And again, these were not a series of charges leveled against me and my coverage of the issue as a general rule, rather these opinions would be offered up from both sides about the same single article. Two colored perceptions reading the same thing and coming to two complete opposite opinions about that same single piece. That's what made the nickname issue, in particular, so hard to cover. I did my best (as a nickname supporter) to set my biases aside and just report on the facts and quote both sides, but that didn't seem good enough for either side.... so to answer your question, with this hyper-polarized, hyper-sensitized issue, in this hyper-PC and hyper-anti-PC reactionary environment, it is very hard to do.