Hello all,
Recently, it seems there is some confusion about this blog and its relationship to the Northern Iowan. Just to clarify a few points:
1. All opinions expressed on this blog belong to their authors alone. They do not reflect the official position of the Northern Iowan or its staff members.
2. This is a blog. Blog posts are not newspaper articles. This means that authors can express their opinions. Writers' opinions do not belong in news articles; that is called editorializing.
For example, if the NI were to run a newspaper article (outside the Opinion section) about David + Katie's recent video, the writer of that article would describe the video in an objective way, then interview several individuals with a variety of opinions about the video, giving none weight over the others. The writer's opinion would not appear in the article.
Because this is a blog, Blake is allowed to express his opinion, with the understanding that he is not speaking for the NI.
I edit most of the posts in the blog for grammar and spelling and the like, but I do not edit or change Blake's arguments and observations. Essentially, I edit them the same way the copy editor and I edit letters to the editor.
I feel I should have made these points more clear at the outset of this election cycle, since it has been a year since the last time we used the blog and two years since the concept of the NISG elections blog was introduced. I apologize for any confusion on that end.
I encourage you to engage (respectfully and constructively) with the blog and with Blake. Please feel free to contact me at braumank@uni.edu if you have any questions.
Kari Braumann
Executive editor
You don't think it'd be appropriate to separate his editorializing from the objective informative pieces that define the role of an NISG president. It's troublesome that he starts out as an objective authority and gradually editorializes from that position. It amplifies his position at the expense of other voice.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more, what was the reasoning behind soliciting only one editorial critic for this election coverage? This is not simply "a blog" but, from what I can tell, it's "the blog" and elevating only one voice doesn't make a lot of sense.
Zach, I'm a bit confused about what you mean by your first sentence; could you please clarify?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like you're saying that he's trying to report "objectively" (I'm using the term very loosely) and explain issues, but then also gives his own opinion, and that you find that confusing and/or disingenuous. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
To address your question, it is difficult to find someone who can write about the NISG elections who is both reasonably well informed and also not involved in any of the campaigns. It was definitely not my intent to elevate one voice above all others, but rather to have at least one voice covering the election (in a blog format, obviously) to keep up with the day-to-day events. I think that is especially important given the NI's semiweekly print publication schedule--we are not always able to be as timely as we would like.
I'd be curious to know if you have any suggestions for adding more voices to the blog.
It's troublesome (for me) that his first article is titled "What is NISG" and he goes on to define what the responsibilities and tasks of the student body president are. He's positioned as an authority and these explanations are presented as objective. As the we follow the blog, that objectivity doesn't simply go away so much as it fades away and I think it loses the distinction between objectivity and editorialization (I may have made that word up). I'll try to use an extended metaphor but it'll probably fall apart.
DeleteSay you're Catholic and you regularly attend a mass. The few Sundays the priest presents the homily as if he's reading the objective text of the the word of God describing the Catholic lifestyle, "Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not eat meat on Friday during Lent, etc."
The next few Sundays he begins to gradually editorialize on those positions. "Thou shall not eat meat on Friday during Lent means that you should fish." It's analysis that follows appropriately from what we understand to be his authority.
When the next Sunday rolls around and the priests starts shilling for Van de Kamps fish sticks he's presenting something that is totally an editorial opinion but it won't be interpreted that way when he is the same person that got to define the terms of Lent and Catholicism.
I don't mean to be so critical and there's not a lot that can be done now, but it would have been nice to separate his editorial opinions from more objective content either by assigning those initial pieces to a different writer or making more clear the distinction between his objective and subjective work.
Oh come on now. You're grasping at straws. If you've ever seen an opinion piece that DIDN'T set a factual basis before editorializing, they're doing it wrong. Do you read blogs? They regularly shift between objective reporting and editorializing. Welcome to the Web 2.0.
DeleteBlake isn't a Catholic Priest. He's a blogger. I imagine UNI students are all mentally mature enough to realize that.
Blake for Pope?
ReplyDelete