What a bunch of garbage. Plain and simple is what it is. Never, in my tenure writing and reading The Guilfordian, have I been so ashamed as of what the paper did in last week’s issue.The interview in last week’s paper was a perfect example of how a newspaper is not to be run. So what happened? An article and a staff editorial were written that our Senate president and other people on Senate did not appreciate. One week later, Melissa Starr wrote a well-thought -out response making some very good points, while at the same time defending Senate’s right to cancel elections.

This should have been the end of it, but it was not. Two weeks after the articles in question were written, an interview with our student president, approximately 1,600 words long, appeared in the paper. The problem is that the interview can be summed up in about one sentence. Our president said that she did not like how the paper represented Senate, and that if it was going to continue to be unfairly critical in her eyes, the Senate would start making a newsletter and website that would give the student body its only access to Senate news and information.

Hmm.the government trying to control the local media, where does this sound familiar? Hold on a minute I have to clear my throat *cough* Iraq *cough* China *cough* Russia *cough* Saudi Arabia. Okay, I feel much better.

Of course I exaggerate; it’s not fair to compare our tiny Senate to those countries’ corrupt governments. They certainly don’t have the budget problems we do.

But that’s not my main problem; it’s nothing new for leaders not to be happy to with the news outlets. I also do not have a problem with the paper reporting a story that it feels is relevant. My problem is when that same paper feels the need to appease certain people by making the paper their own personal sounding block.

So with this in mind, the paper decided to give the president 1,600 words to make her case for no elections.again. The paper seems very afraid of getting on Senate’s bad side, and to the average reader it appears to be the reason behind conducting such an interview.

Another problem with the interview was that the interviewer seemed, not so much overwhelmed, but like he was walking on eggshells the whole time, not wanting to offend anybody further.

He asked a number of good pointed questions that were well focused on the subject. All too often, though, the interviewer proceeded to lob softball questions. For example, he asked if our president had any more criticisms about the paper. Who cares if anybody has criticisms about the paper? They can always write a response to anything in the paper. (Wasn’t that already done?)

Of course our president does not want to have to do that every week. As she said, “Every time you write something negative about Senate we read it. And I don’t have 30, 40 minutes every week writing back. I don’t think it’s right! I think it’s unfair. I already told this to James-if this continues then I’m going to take my time and put effort into having a website instead of talking to The Guilfordian.”

How can we expect our paper to stay impartial since it appears willing to cave to threats of a media blackout?

My unsolicited suggestion to our Senate is this: If something negative is written about Senate, no one has to respond. You claim that the reporting is illegitimate, but you legitimize it by responding. The campus isn’t going wait with baited breath for your response. Things have a habit of going away if you don’t talk about them.

I would also suggest this: Get over it and move on. Nothing is going to get done if you keep harping about this problem. Stop sounding like a bunch of whiners about how somebody hurt your feelings. It’s unappealing and not what leaders do.

To The Guilfordian: Get thicker skin and stand by your stories. When you start letting people rant and rave in the paper, it appears the paper is more concerned with its relationships to campus leaders than its ability to report news. But who knows if anything will change? We’ll see about this one.