I don’t intend this to be an indictment of Carmen, but an assault on the editorial integrity and quality of the Sagebrush endorsement column. I would ask students to consider what they actually learned from this poorly executed rhetorical exercise.
The Sagebrush has once again proved it doesn't seem to give a shit about reality. With their endorsement of Carmen Gilbert, the Sagebrush editorial staff seems to have created their own reality. I'm not saying I disagree with their endorsement, nor do I agree -- I'm still undecided -- but several things stand out as interesting?
The staff sites communication issues as the primary reason for endorsing Carmen Gilbert. Where in her platform, or Eli's for that matter, is improving communication between the branches discussed? I'll save you some time, it's not. However, both candidates have expressed concerns during debates on improving communication between the branches.
"she’s shown her leadership by holding others accountable for their actions throughout the years"
Again, what is the substance that precipitated this statement? Was it her involvement with the impeachment hearings concerning President Ragsdale?
“The students will need a leader who won’t succumb to administrative pressure. They need a representative to speak for them to the university’s administration, the Board of Regents and the Nevada Legislature.”
Thanks for quoting her platform for us. As journalists, did it occur to you to inquire as to how she might accomplish this? Because this is already what ASUN kind of does, and did successfully this year and last without her.
This editorial, in its lack of depth and ignorance of reality, does nothing to educate students and detracts from a legitimate analytical comparison of the two candidates and their platforms. More disappointing and ill-informed coverage of ASUN, but it’s close enough for the news media I suppose.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Sagebrush Proves Ignorance
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I agree. I don't see how one year of senatorial experience is enough to be qualified for the office of the President.
anonymous, did you read the post? It's about the Sagebrush, not about whether or not one year of experience makes you qualified. How does two years of putting on events make you qualified?
There is the assumption that just because Eli held the title of Travel and Rec Chair and Director of Programming that he actually did stuff. He was one of the least efficient programmers his year and this year Eli has taken the credit for all of the success of his board. Eli doesn't even deserve one ounce of credit because from what I hear not a single programmer is going to vote for him.
lets talk about nicole nelson and how she can't be an objective election chair because she shows candidate bias....i.e. the suit that Tim Tachyer brought up about the bolding of an incumbents name...
I'm sure the other Taylor Anderson saw into the future that someone with his same name would run and so he decide to write that law to give himself an advantage.Yeah right c&k give me a break, thats how the government does it in multiple states. As for Nicole Nelson, it was not your place to provide an opinion supporting either candidate the way you did. Totally out of line. What happened to following the rules? And, for the record, I agree that the Sagebrush shouldn't have endorsed anyone. The are only supposed to provide information so that students can make an informed voting decision. By endorsing candidates the Sagebrush lost its integrity and objective journalistic credentials.
The Sagebrush absolutely should endorse candidates. It's called the editorial page for a reason. The coverage on the news page must be objective, but what goes on the editorial page is fair game.
The editorial board of a publication is often among the most informed individuals in society. They get fed all kinds of information from the paper's reporters and are sufficiently disconnected from ASUN to provide perspective. The fact that the Sagebrush has endorsed Carmen should volumes in favor of her.
I'm sure that "in some societies" this is the truth, but this entire post by MailStop serves to prove that this is not the case!
Is it bad when major daily newspapers endorse U.S. presidential candidates? Should newspapers just get rid of their editorial pages? Seems like readers can't tell the difference nowadays.
Major daily newspapers get the facts correct. Major daily newspapers fire ignorant columnists.
It seems to me that the Sagebrush's editorial was merely an exercise in bad rhetoric, I don't see where it got the facts wrong. Should it run a correction? Please elaborate, anonymous (the 8th one).
Four words: Who gives a shit. Has anybody realized it's a fucking newspaper endorsement. It might be hard to realize for some of you, but that shit is not binding nor influential (http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3750)
Seems to me the authors of this blog should just go sit on a prosthetic. They're not focusing on the real issue at hand anyway. (P.S. It has to do with an election).
yeah, its an opinion piece. they can endorse anyone they want to. what about eli reilly endorsing himself in the coffin and keys newsletter? what a bogus endorsement that is! and then he brags to everyone about being endorsed by coffin and keys, seems to me that kind of endorsement is the kiss of death, look at chris driscoll...
The vote is on. Go Eli, Go!
if you had done your research you would see that chris was not endorsed by coffin and keys.
YESS!!! NO MORE SHIT TALKING OR BASHING, ELI IS PRESIDENT AND THE WAR HAS ENDED!!
Again, this blog is boring.
Mr. Anonymous,
I'm pretty sure this one is Driscoll.
Chris Driscoll wasn't endorsed by coffin and keys and as i recall, when I picked up that fascist piece of paper, neither was Sarah. It made her sound better becuase she was the best for the job, and the paper said "you pick" for president.
Sincerely,
Student who knows everything
Any reason why you guys stopped posting?
Soooooooo is this blog dead?
Post a Comment