COLUMN: Letters from the Editor
Missed Stories
Readers,
The above letter makes a few claims about the newspaper I would like to dismiss.
The writer claimed The Statesman is unwilling to give Sigma Nu bad press for the fight that ensued the night of the HOWL.
First, The Statesman doesn’t work for anyone. We aren’t unwilling to give anyone bad press. We aren’t unwilling to run an article on the fight.
We just couldn’t. Things happen. In some cases, we don’t have enough people to check all of the possible news sources for us.
If this were such a big issue for the reader, why didn’t he let us know about the fight? I’m not even aware of any Statesman staff members who were at Sigma Nu’s party.
It’s really unfair to randomly accuse our reporters of being unwilling to do their jobs. For your information, we plan to run a follow-up story this week.
Security of editors
Readers,
We ran a letter on Friday that accused us of “blatant derogatory inference that is specifically forbidden in publicly submitted letters to the editor.”
This was written in reference to an “Our View” that was published immediately following the HOWL and did not refer to any one person.
First, let me give you some background on the opinion section. The “Our View” is a column expressing the opinions of the editorial board of the newspaper. This board comprises nine members of The Statesman staff who meet weekly to discuss issues we think students ought to be aware of. One board member is chosen to write the “Our View” each issue.
The “Our View” to which the reader referred did not, in any way, endanger anyone’s freedom to enjoy himself. We simply stated some girls dress like prostitutes. Some do, plain and simple. I’m sure they still had a great time at the HOWL.
Note: Be careful with words you use when criticizing people who edit every word they read. The person who complained was more interested in using expensive words than in making sense.
Comments can be sent to jmdo@cc.usu.edu