Another Comment on the Mess Critique

I to some extent agree with de Tocqueville: expecting a conservative newspaper to not espouse conservative views is extremely hypocritical. She wants diversity, but automatically disregards those conservative opinions which she deems objectionable. That is like saying we want cultural diversity, and then not allowing those of different cultures express themselves culturally. I also have to disagree with de Tocqueville as to the proper medium for encouraging bipartisan dialog. The Counterweight decided to consolidate many of the conservative writers on campus because of our getting drowned out by the other three liberal opinions that would appear in the same paper. Now we have a cohesive voice. The Mess does not have the burden of promoting bipartisan dialog, it is each and every one of us in our actions, interactions, and reactions to others on campus. The Mess needs writers desparately...I'm sure Andrea Horbinski gets sick of having to write something a little out there every week because they need to fill space. Because only liberals write in, they are the ones on the opinion pages of the Mess. We have the Counterweight for our views.

However, I do take a less extreme view on the point of the paper. The paper is supposed to indirectly encourage bipartisan dialog by providing a forum for the conservative voice to express itself in an honest, logical manner.

I agree with some of her critiques of the paper: the definition of news is problematic for us. It seems that the paper can be one of two mediums: a journal of conservative thought or a newspaper. Because we are interested in those things that occur on campus and because we do report on them (from our perspective of course), I do think it is appropriate to call us a newspaper. We could focus a bit more on the news aspect, and that is indeed room for improvement.

I also take issue with her selective quoting. Her quoting Chase's article about women and minorities left out the previous statements he made about the feelings of entitlement from rich white kids. In addition, she cites our Mission Statement and says that some of our commentary w/in the articles is problematic. Perhaps this is the case, but relative to some of the seething articles written weekly in the Mess, we pale in comparison.

In general, I think she made some good arguments. We do occasionally stick a sarcastic line in there when perhaps we shouldn't. We do make a very good, and I believe successful effort to avoid ad hominem attacks on others or on other organizations. We try to be constructive, and if a little shot of reality every once in a while is called for, I don't necessarily think it wrong to take it. If you want to read cheap shots, read the Sex Column in the Mess. He takes every chance he gets to slander conservatives and traditionalists. When we say something sarcastic or a little edgy, at least we back it up. Also, her point about the "news" is well taken, and is an issue we have been trying to collectively deal with. Hopefully you will see some improvement in this area soon. However, I do think she went too far in saying that the Counterweight is too extreme and that it is too controversial. In general, on an intolerant campus espousing conservative ideas is controversial in and of itself. We do not go out of our way to be, we just say what about a quarter of this campus wishes it could say but doesnt in order to avoid the kinds of reactions we get. I for one appreciate a little criticism every once in a while, and if we as a paper decide to take a little and leave a little, I think the paper will be better off for it

- burke