2008 Woodie Awards
FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK: Does The Commentator Need a Faculty Advisor?
A Look Inside Yeshiva's Student Newspaper
Zev Nagel
Issue date: 3/29/05 Section: Editorials/Op-Ed
- Page 1 of 2 next >
The answer is an obvious and unequivocal no. Yet occurrences in recent months have encouraged exploration of the question, albeit the presence of an undisputed answer. This, however, was not always the case; for a number of years, each edition of The Commentator had to make a pit stop at the desk of its faculty advisor before dashing off to press. The advisor was less another mind to bounce ideas off of and more a human censor who made sure the university was not poorly portrayed. Obviously, such a setup did great damage to the notion of free press and the ability of the newspaper to serve as a true forum for dialogue.
Today our situation is quite different, though many would like to think differently. The Commentator has only its editorial board to review its material. And while that often allows mistakes to slip under our ostensibly human radar, it also enhances the rewards of success. We ourselves explore the issues confronting the university, allowing us opportunities to openly and constructively to share news and opinion. Undergraduate newspapers should never fear repercussions from administrators and faculty for doing their job. Those quoted in the newspaper should proudly speak their minds and not hid behind the notorious veneer of anonymity. True freedom grants all of us the right to be honest and up front. Surely, we maintain codes of decency and conduct in style and approach; but the truth cannot and will never be obscured.
Yet Yeshiva still belongs to a culture that greatly mistrusts the media, a fact that makes the pursuit of truth all the more thorny. Admittedly, the new administration, with President Joel at its helm, has been incredibly supportive of the student free press. But many of the old-time stalwarts, professors and administrators who have been around for much longer, still demand of our writers to see their quotes before publication. While some defend the practice as a way of avoiding "being misquoted," requests out of rote signify the practice is not disappearing any time soon. Administrators interviewed for stories demand to see entire articles before the print deadline. And often after reviewing the final copy, they spontaneously stipulate revisions. They protest disclosure of crucial information, citing "institutional interests" as a way of masking their paranoia and stigma to the media. Simply put, reporting for The Commentator is a constant uphill battle.
Today our situation is quite different, though many would like to think differently. The Commentator has only its editorial board to review its material. And while that often allows mistakes to slip under our ostensibly human radar, it also enhances the rewards of success. We ourselves explore the issues confronting the university, allowing us opportunities to openly and constructively to share news and opinion. Undergraduate newspapers should never fear repercussions from administrators and faculty for doing their job. Those quoted in the newspaper should proudly speak their minds and not hid behind the notorious veneer of anonymity. True freedom grants all of us the right to be honest and up front. Surely, we maintain codes of decency and conduct in style and approach; but the truth cannot and will never be obscured.
Yet Yeshiva still belongs to a culture that greatly mistrusts the media, a fact that makes the pursuit of truth all the more thorny. Admittedly, the new administration, with President Joel at its helm, has been incredibly supportive of the student free press. But many of the old-time stalwarts, professors and administrators who have been around for much longer, still demand of our writers to see their quotes before publication. While some defend the practice as a way of avoiding "being misquoted," requests out of rote signify the practice is not disappearing any time soon. Administrators interviewed for stories demand to see entire articles before the print deadline. And often after reviewing the final copy, they spontaneously stipulate revisions. They protest disclosure of crucial information, citing "institutional interests" as a way of masking their paranoia and stigma to the media. Simply put, reporting for The Commentator is a constant uphill battle.