Another point of view of the UND vs NCAA

[Fetch]

No will No way

[UND Fan]

^^ What makes you think anyone cares what a Bison fan thinks about the things we should do on the Sioux nickname?

If you want to fold when things get difficult, than fold! Don't tell us to!

JUST IGNORE HIM!!!

[ScottM]

I always heard 5 Chippewa tribes in Michigan.

I didn't hear of "both tribes" for UND until the settlement. And the State agreed to it in the settlement (for whatever reason).

When the settlement came out Stenehjem said he believed he could negotiate with the tribes because he'd done so on other difficult issues.

The better question is this:

Where was the ND SBoHE when it came to driving the AG to go and negotiate for them?

Stenehjem's just the attorney; his client (SBoHE) has to direct his actions.

My concerns about making the name subject to the ebbs and flows of tribal poltiics notwithstanding, I never understood the "two tribes consent" requirement. At the very least, I believe the Board should have been able to negotiate the same level of consent as was afforded to Florida, Utah, etc. Then again, both states' congressional delegations got on the NC$$ almost immediately. NoDak? Never a word from anybody. I think the only Congressman who wanted to push the NC$$ was from Illinois(?) and he lost the following election. You would think at least one of the current crop in NoDak's DC crew might be amenable to pushing the NC$$ into opening its kimono, on this and other issues. Until Capitol Hill starts picking on the NC$$, they'll basically laugh at some smallish state in "flyover country".

[Teeder11]

It is a shame that our local media is so dedicated to its ancient cause, that it can't take a moment to consider the absurdity of the NCAA's position. The journalistic integrity of the Forum/Herald on this particular matter is so thoroughly questionable that their own professional journalistic ethics should preclude them from making further comment. They are journalists who are so fully and totally compromised that I charge their recent spate of editorials and columns are unethical, and deserving of being told -- via e-mail and letters to the editor, that their behavior on this issue is damaging their credibility on many other subjects, and they should -- for ethical reasons - refrain from future comment.

Firstly, Jacobs and Dennis are paid to give their opinions. They are not the news writers. They give their personal opinions on the news of the day and they have not been at all cryptic about where they stand on the nickname issue. And they sign their name under their opinion and stand by it. I for one think that's admirable, regardless of how asinine the opinion. I may not agree with their opinion but I at least am savvy enough about journalism to know who is an opinion writer and who is a news writer.

Secondly, Omdahl does not work for the Herald. He is not a journalist, either. He, like Jacobs and Dennis, is a man with an opinion in a country where we value the right to express such. If they wrote their usual drivel, and Chewey's favorite word, pablum, on the news pages, then, I would say your point is spot on. But, it's not... it's just their opinion and it appears where it belongs -- on the opinion pages -- so they are fully within their right, IMHO.

I find it refreshing to read opposing view points than what we get for the most part on this message board. Always nice to know what the other side is thinking, I say. What a boring world it would be if the Herald and Forum only wrote exactly what we think and what we believe... I mean, what would we gripe about. LOL!

Hey, even Chuck Haga threw a curve ball the other day with his piece about Former Gov. Allen Olson and his negative view of the NCAA. I thought it was a great article that portrayed the NC$$ exactly as it is: a money-grubbing, monopolistic, small-school bullying, big-school kowtowing, hypocritical organization. The article went against the grain as far as the popularly believed narrative about the Herald that is oft repeated on this message board. It may have confused you and many others. Thus, I am not surprised that you did not recall that the Herald did exactly what you say it did/does not -- in your own words: "take a moment to consider the absurdity of the NCAA's position." You must have missed that article as I did not see you leading the cheer line, dishing out compliments for the local rag. That said, I did see a few positive comments from others about the story on here. I know, I know.. one story does not make up for the mountain of anti-nickname venom they've eschewed over the years. My point, however, for the sake of consistency, is that we should applaud an effort well done as much as we complain about perceived hatchet jobs that injure our pro-nickname cause and our fellow friends of the nickname.

[HowBoutThemBison?]

JUST IGNORE HIM!!!

JUST IGNORE THAT AN AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED BY UND!!! Seriously though, they got it in ink, it will be tough to make that go away. Think of it this way, you guys work as a GM for the Vikings. Jared Allen signs a deal for 4 years/35 million. Later when he finds out he could have gotten 45 million he tells you that he deserves a new deal just a week later, and that he will sue you for that extra 10 million. He doesn't really have a case. Neither does UND.

[HowBoutThemBison?]

Your use of a slang word here is inappropriate, disrespectful of Native American culture, and is part of the problem. Obviously you have the right to free speech, but please consider others in your use of vocabulary that may be considered racist by others.

Trust me, I have considered it. I don't know what culture you are really referring to anymore. 200 years ago, they had a culture, nowadays....not really. The only "Native" I can honestly say I respect is Payton DeCoteau from your football team. Damn good wrestler and seemed like a good guy.

[BobIwabuchiFan]

Firstly, Jacobs and Dennis are paid to give their opinions. They are not the news writers. They give their personal opinions on the news of the day and they have not been at all cryptic about where they stand on the nickname issue. And they sign their name under their opinion and stand by it. I for one think that's admirable, regardless of how asinine the opinion. I may not agree with their opinion but I at least am savvy enough about journalism to know who is an opinion writer and who is a news writer.

Secondly, Omdahl does not work for the Herald. He is not a journalist, either. He, like Jacobs and Dennis, is a man with an opinion in a country where we value the right to express such. If they wrote their usual drivel, and Chewey's favorite word, pablum, on the news pages, then, I would say your point is spot on. But, it's not... it's just their opinion and it appears where it belongs -- on the opinion pages -- so they are fully within their right, IMHO.

I find it refreshing to read opposing view points than what we get for the most part on this message board. Always nice to know what the other side is thinking, I say. What a boring world it would be if the Herald and Forum only wrote exactly what we think and what we believe... I mean, what would we gripe about. LOL!

Hey, even Chuck Haga threw a curve ball the other day with his piece about Former Gov. Allen Olson and his negative view of the NCAA. I thought it was a great article that portrayed the NC$$ exactly as it is: a money-grubbing, monopolistic, small-school bullying, big-school kowtowing, hypocritical organization. The article went against the grain as far as the popularly believed narrative about the Herald that is oft repeated on this message board. It may have confused you and many others. Thus, I am not surprised that you did not recall the article and that the Herald did exactly what you say it did/does not -- in your own words: "take a moment to consider the absurdity of the NCAA's position." You must have missed that article as I did not see you leading the cheer line, dishing out compliments for the local rag. That said, I did see a few positive comments from others about the story on here. I know, I know.. one story does not make up for the mountain of anti-nickname venom they've eschewed over the years. My point, however, for the sake of consistency, is that we should applaud an effort well done as much as we complain about perceived hatchet jobs that injure our pro-nickname cause and our fellow friends of the nickname.

Sorry, but Jacobs and Dennis are being paid by the Herald and they basically have to restrain themselves when it comes to the Nickname discussion. As for Omdahl, he is political hack that is allowed to voice his progressive, democrat positions any time he wants...again, the paper is primarily a progressive paper that pretends to be conservative when it fits their needs. Lastly, your point about one story for the nickname versus a multitude of stories and opinions against the nickname is evidence of the liberal, progressive leanings of the paper and shouldn't be dismissed away because we don't jump up and down with appreciation for letting our side of the arguement see the light of day once and a while in the Herald. I have stopped my subscription and won't continue until more conservative opinions start to make equal headway into the paper again...

BobIwabuchiFan

[Chewey]

Those three schools only had to gain approval from one tribe in each state. In Michigan, there are at least 17 Chippewa/Objiwe tribes, but CMU only needed one of them.

The NCAA has always demanded two tribal approvals for UND- even before the settlement - when all other schools only needed one.

UND is also the only school that needs approval from a tribe (Standing Rock) that has a large portion of its people outside the state.

IMHO, the AG and SBoHE didn't believe it could gain either Sioux tribe approval, and they didn't want the wrath of ND to fall on either, so when they negotiated a settlement, they accepted both as needing approval, thinking neither would be possible. Technically, part of the Sisseton Sioux reservation is in ND, too.

But in all other cases, only one tribal approval has been required.

Very astute take. I agree. Speaking of the SR Tribe being partially in SD, I suppose one could justify a modification of the agreement based upon mutual mistake or impossibility of performance. The mistake was the presumption that there were/are 2 ND Sioux tribes; there is only 1 ND Sioux tribe that is contained completely within the state's boarders. Wouldn't the agreement, to be accurate, have had to say that all ND and SD Sioux tribes would need to approve? Jesse Taken Alive, himself, said that trying to force the South Dakota members of the SR tribe to vote would be like the United States trying to force Canadian citizens to vote on a United States issue/law. Makes sense to me.

[Teeder11]

Sorry, but Jacobs and Dennis are being paid by the Herald and they basically have to restrain themselves when it comes to the Nickname discussion. As for Omdahl, he is political hack that is allowed to voice his progressive, democrat positions any time he wants...again, the paper is primarily a progressive paper that pretends to be conservative when it fits their needs. Lastly, your point about one story for the nickname versus a multitude of stories and opinions against the nickname is evidence of the liberal, progressive leanings of the paper and shouldn't be dismissed away because we don't jump up and down with appreciation for letting our side of the arguement see the light of day once and a while in the Herald. I have stopped my subscription and won't continue until more conservative opinions start to make equal headway into the paper again...

BobIwabuchiFan

That's exactly what I said. They are getting paid by the Herald to give THEIR opinion, not to be a megaphone for or a reflection of the opinions of their readership or nonreadership, in your case. Yours is a different beef than mine, however. You don't like liberalism being expressed without a balance of conservatism added in. There is nothing wrong with that stance. And there is also nothing wrong with the fact that you have voted with your pocketbook not to support what you perceive has unchecked liberalism in the newspaper. Here's the rub, though, every newspaper has its biases, the NYT, Washington Post, Grand Forks Herald, etc. are liberal, while the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, et.al are right of center. They have made a decision to favor one ideology over the other. That is their right. You will be hard pressed to find a utopian publication of unbiased opinion. If you like a publication's posture, then fine, if you hate it, then take your dollars elsewhere, as you have so rightly done. BUT to suggest (not you) that they are being "unethical" by giving their opinion in an opinion section is what I take issue with.

Personally, I still hold my subscription to the Herald, not because I agree with its editorial ideology, but rather because I love its UND hockey coverage and I want to support Schlossman. He's the man!

I totally respect your opinion. Have a great day!

[Goon]

Trust me, I have considered it. I don't know what culture you are really referring to anymore. 200 years ago, they had a culture, nowadays....not really. The only "Native" I can honestly say I respect is Payton DeCoteau from your football team. Damn good wrestler and seemed like a good guy.

Looks like you don't plan on being here very long...

[Goon]

Personally, I still hold my subscription to the Herald, not because I agree with its editorial ideology, but rather because I love its UND hockey coverage and I want to support Schlossman. He's the man! !

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.

[Teeder11]

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!

[Fetch]

I'll agree with Brad's column too ---keep up the good work Brad - talk some sense into the rest of the Yahoo's

[Chewey]

Trust me, I have considered it. I don't know what culture you are really referring to anymore. 200 years ago, they had a culture, nowadays....not really. The only "Native" I can honestly say I respect is Payton DeCoteau from your football team. Damn good wrestler and seemed like a good guy.

Are we sure that this synapse-impaired cretin is not yet ANOTHER anti-nickname "plant"? The racist anti-nicknamers have been known to ghost racist and inflammatory vitriol on here before (Grahamcracker, lomackman, lakes Bison, etc).

[Siouxbooster#33]

That's exactly what I said. They are getting paid by the Herald to give THEIR opinion, not to be a megaphone for or a reflection of the opinions of their readership or nonreadership, in your case. Yours is a different beef than mine, however. You don't like liberalism being expressed without a balance of conservatism added in. There is nothing wrong with that stance. And there is also nothing wrong with the fact that you have voted with your pocketbook not to support what you perceive has unchecked liberalism in the newspaper. Here's the rub, though, every newspaper has its biases, the NYT, Washington Post, Grand Forks Herald, etc. are liberal, while the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, et.al are right of center. They have made a decision to favor one ideology over the other. That is their right. You will be hard pressed to find a utopian publication of unbiased opinion. If you like a publication's posture, then fine, if you hate it, then take your dollars elsewhere, as you have so rightly done. BUT to suggest (not you) that they are being "unethical" by giving their opinion in an opinion section is what I take issue with.

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.

[Teeder11]

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.

[star2city]

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.

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.

[Teeder11]

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

[The Sicatoka]

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.

How about when a monopolistic entity made up of primarily public institutions tries to censor freedom of speech of a member?

[Teeder11]

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!

[darell1976]

Has anyone thought about protesting at the NCAA headquarters in Indy? I would if I had time but imagine a bunch of Sioux (and other schools) fans with signs in front of their office. The media would have a field day with that.

[Siouxbooster#33]

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 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.

[ScottM]

How about when a monopolistic entity made up of primarily public institutions tries to censor freedom of speech of a member?

Based on a case the Supremes heard yesterday, that kind of argument may actually have some traction. While this case largely concerned privacy issues, it also brought out First Amendment protections of commercial speech.

NY Times

[Teeder11]

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.

[Siouxbooster#33]

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.

Well, I feel much better, and I feel more informed.