As I sat down with a cup of coffee and the Campus Times two weeks ago, I was excited to read each side’s final argument for the election from students’ perspectives.
As I opened to the Election ’08 feature, the first headline that caught my eye was ‘McCain is no FDR, but he’s better than Obama.”
Initially puzzled, I tried to rearrange this statement in my mind to make some sense of it. I failed. It carried as much significance as the statement ‘Obama is no Reagan, but he’s better than McCain” or ‘Apples are no peaches, but better than oranges,” which is none.
As I continued through the article, I was appalled by a paragraph questioning the whereabouts of Obama’s birth. This grotesque statement claimed Obama was ‘probably born in America.”
I immediately stopped reading this article, as all credibility of the writer was inevitably lost.
The suggestion that Obama was possibly in violation of Article II of the Constitution and that the U.S. government somehow overlooked it was an absolute and repulsive slap in the face to the integrity of journalism, especially with less than a week until voting day.
It is smears like these that have collectively lowered the standards for political journalism and campaigning over the past few decades.
Additionally, this is not to be labeled a partisan issue, as radicals from both sides are guilty of these practices. I commend other writers in the election feature for their allegiance to the practice of fair journalism.
Class of 2011
‘VOX Protests and Petitions” skimmed over the groups’ goals
While I would like to thank the Campus Times for printing ‘VOX Protests and Petitions” on Nov. 6, I thought that the article missed the point of the week’s activities. While we did want to ‘educate UR students” about Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) and the millions of dollars they get through abstinence-only federal programs, our biggest goal was to make students aware of the fact that CPCs were disguising themselves as family-planning centers in on-campus advertisements.
Sumya was incorrect in her statement that ‘These flyers mentioned the names of three CPCs that claimed they would help women weigh all of the options available to them when expecting a child.” The flyers actually stated, ‘Worried You Might Be Pregnant? Wondering where to turn? You don’t have to face this alone” and then listed the three CPCs. This type of advertisement is a very common tactic because it is intentionally vague.
Women’s Caucus and VOX want students to be aware that these centers are religiously affiliated pro-life organizations and to let them know that there are places to turn which are unbiased and nonjudgmental, such as Planned Parenthood. Being a pro-choice organization, Planned Parenthood works with women to figure out the best options for them in cases of unplanned or unintended pregnancies.
Class of 2009
Opinions on marijuana belong in Opinions, not Features
I am disappointed that Amanda Goodman’s article, ‘Clearing up the hazy misinformation about marijuana,” was published as a feature in the Nov. 6 issue. While the Campus Times has long served the UR community as a forum for controversial dialogue, this type of article not only undermines the purpose of the Features section, but also calls into question the intent of the Campus Times editors.
The long-standing purpose of the Features section has been to provide the UR community with an in-depth look at current events, both on and off campus. Recently, however, there has been a shift in this philosophy, and articles that rightfully belong in the Opinions section have been published as features.
Whether this is due to a layout issue, a change in approach or simply sheer oversight is unknown to readers; however, Goodman’s opinion that it’s best to use marijuana ‘in moderation” and that ‘pot is dumb to do” are more appropriately placed in an opinions piece.
In addition, the Campus Times should be more careful about the messages sent in its articles.
While Goodman does highlight some negative consequences of marijuana use, detrimental health effects are left out; in fact, in terms of health, her focus is exclusively on positive benefits.
With a behavior as potentially dangerous as drug use, this is a severe oversight on part of the Campus Times editorial staff.
Class of ’05
Opinions editor misconstrues article with headline
We are writing to express our extreme dissatisfaction with the title selected for our op-ed in last week’s CT, ‘Students: take care when judging medical clinics.”
It would behoove the respective section editor to read opinion pieces like ours with a more discerning eye and careful attention.
Such a careful reading would have revealed that, in fact, we argue the very opposite of what the title chosen by the Opinions editor would lead one to believe; that is, we argue that crisis pregnancy centers, which disguise themselves as legitimate medical facilities and mislead women, are actually not medical clinics at all.
We hope to see more attentive, responsible titling on the CT op-ed page in the future.
Meghan Gilligan, Take Five Scholar, and Adelaide Kuehn, Class of 2011