2008 Woodie Awards
Signed, Yours Truly
Muhlenberg Weekly Executive Board
Issue date: 4/17/08 Section: Op/Ed
We were shocked to read the special edition of the Advocate last Friday night that exposed the current trouble Student Council happened to be in. Aware of the situation, we had planned on writing an article about it and informing the campus, but it seems the Advocate beat us to it. While journalism can be a race, we feel that even though we were not the ones to drop the article, we did come out on top.
Employing ethical journalism, we investigated the whole story. Our news editors were thorough and respectful and dug for the entire story, rather than launch an all-out attack on Council. The cardinal rule in journalism is to tell the truth, and we feel that we did. We went to both sides and obtained information. We spoke directly to sources. We emailed the administration and took our cues from them. We were told to give the administration and Council some time to discuss the problem, so we did. We waited for the fuller story - we waited for all parts of the truth to come out.
We do not judge the Advocate for wanting to release the story as soon as they got wind of it; we do judge them for their faulty journalism. They forgot about the ethics that rule our profession. Their article was merely an attack on Council, that may have been warranted if there had been facts to back up those unsigned opinions. They cast Council, Dean Green and Chris Jachimowicz in an extremely harsh light, without proof other than "former and current members of Student Council corroborated on [their] story."
Their writing was concise and effective. The message was clear and biased, as an editorial should be, but this was so much more than an editorial. This was news, news that the campus only got a fraction of, until now. Even if the story is less scandelous this way, it is still the whole story. It still gives an adequate explanation from all sides. It is still fair and balanced reporting. It is journalism as it was always meant to be.
We have done our job as it should be done, so we are proud of our article, our intergrity and our staff - for printing all the truth that's too good to post online.
Employing ethical journalism, we investigated the whole story. Our news editors were thorough and respectful and dug for the entire story, rather than launch an all-out attack on Council. The cardinal rule in journalism is to tell the truth, and we feel that we did. We went to both sides and obtained information. We spoke directly to sources. We emailed the administration and took our cues from them. We were told to give the administration and Council some time to discuss the problem, so we did. We waited for the fuller story - we waited for all parts of the truth to come out.
We do not judge the Advocate for wanting to release the story as soon as they got wind of it; we do judge them for their faulty journalism. They forgot about the ethics that rule our profession. Their article was merely an attack on Council, that may have been warranted if there had been facts to back up those unsigned opinions. They cast Council, Dean Green and Chris Jachimowicz in an extremely harsh light, without proof other than "former and current members of Student Council corroborated on [their] story."
Their writing was concise and effective. The message was clear and biased, as an editorial should be, but this was so much more than an editorial. This was news, news that the campus only got a fraction of, until now. Even if the story is less scandelous this way, it is still the whole story. It still gives an adequate explanation from all sides. It is still fair and balanced reporting. It is journalism as it was always meant to be.
We have done our job as it should be done, so we are proud of our article, our intergrity and our staff - for printing all the truth that's too good to post online.