My problem with Forward Thinking
KS at Forward Thinking argues that campus press holds progressives to a higher standard than conservatives. When it comes to serving a public position, shouldn’t progressives/liberals be held to a higher standard? Progressives and liberal minded students sign up for these positions out of a sense of civic duty, or so their ideology leaves one to suppose. Forward Thinking champions this when it bears fruit. The assumption about conservatives is that taking a student position is really just something to pad a resume with, in preparation of setting forth into the business world. In another sense, as very smart Democratic politician once said to me regarding the work ethic of staffers in Legislative offices: “We Democrats need to work harder here [in government] to address our constituent’s issues more efficiently and thoroughly, because as Democrats we are expected to demonstrate that government works.” In a way, Kyle should be honored to have his feet held to the fire, at least good things were once expected of him.
sonneman
Hey, nice blog. Just saw the link on The Sconz, otherwise I would have commented earlier.
The thing is, in a way, I don’t really disagree with your premise. Progressives should be held to a higher standard because our espoused goals, especially on campus, are just more noble than those of the right. Like you indicated, no one is joining SLAC to pad their resume; the same cannot be said of, say, being the Chair of the College Republicans.
Where I disagree, however, is in the the notion that the campus press should hold a different standard for those of different ideologies. I mean, what kind of journalism is that? In other words, it should be up to readers, citizens and, indeed, we progressives to hold the left to a higher standard. Journalism should be fair and objective.
And keep in mind, a lot of what I have criticized in the campus press is less about different standards than blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy. I mean, the Herald has literally concocted entire controversies and ran with them on the front page. The political motivations are absurdly transparent. Do you really expect me not to complain about that?
Ultimately, the vilification of the left is inevitable; it’s been that way ever since I’ve been on campus, and it’s like that everywhere in the country. Frankly, if it was just the usual tepid bias I probably wouldn’t even care enough to write about it. But when people feel the need to take it upon themselves to slander and lie about people in a petty attempt to discredit ideas with which they disagree, that deserves to be called out.
The point is that when you put yourselves out there more, i.e. create FACES out of the Vote No Coalition and promise to make drastic changes to the way ASM does things, the campus press is going to pay more attention to what you’re doing, your motives, your successes and your failures.
When “conservative” (as you put it) ASM members were doing dumb things (like trying to organize a grocery store or denying funding to RCF because they’re Catholic), which, like the left, deviated from the norm and failed, they too were the subject of scrutiny.
You’re no different than the “right”, you just fail more often because your ideals lack the support of most of campus.
Kevin, I understand your need to defend your paper when it’s called out for its hypocrisy, but you really just sound dumb when you write things like you just did above.
The Herald has criticized ASM for being a joke – OK, congratulations. But the idea that you hold the right to as high of a standard as those of us on the left is just idiotic. Did the Herald attack a former SSFC Chair when he was forced to resign for bribery and intimidation of GSSF groups? Did you criticize the right when they excluded all of the FACES (and students of color) from their new “vision” statement for ASM? Or, just recently, did you criticize the right for its series of resignations in ASM (the right also had a slate, by the way)? No, you didn’t, and its’ because your paper is intent on defending the right and center and demonizing the left. Which probably explains why there are NO progressives in the leadership of the Herald (and why did Eric Schmidt resign, by the way? Was it possibly related?).
And I’m not really sure how can you call a political faction which wins about every other campus election and does more positive grassroots activism than everyone else combined a failure. But that’s probably just your normal bias showing. The facts don’t matter much to ya’ll at the Herald, do they?
We attempted to. We could not get anybody to go on the record about the SSFC chair in question. We heard the rumors just as you did, but records requests returned nothing concerning the matter in the former chair’s emails. If you have information that could be useful in uncovering that story, you know how to contact me.
And Eric resigned for personal reasons. Please don’t pretend to create some sort of controversy from a very private matter.
I don’t care about that story anymore, and I don’t believe you that you did any sort of real digging into it. The ASM Constitutional Committee Chair (Jeff Wright) and ASM Chair (Britney Weigand) told the guy that he had to resign or he would be impeached on the floor on the SSFC. Fergus was in on it, too. He had become a liability for the Constitutional effort, so they had to dump him. These weren’t rumors; everyone on the inside of ASM knew what was going on. Indeed, my email exchanges with Jeff and Britney basically says it all, and if you’re really interested, I could forward them to you. (But you’ll have to promise to stop your anti-left bias in exchange. Deal?) In other words, the fact that the Herald didn’t print that story indicates that either 1) You’re lying or 2) The journalism at your paper sucks. I’m inclined to believe both are true.
And yea, I’m really trying to “create a controversy.” I don’t really care why Eric resigned, it’s just I ran into him on the street the other day and he said he quit because he had enough of the “frustration,” and that his reasons were “probably the same as mine.” And since I quit because I was sick of the right-wing bullshit and dishonesty that defines the Herald, I would be logically correct in assuming that Eric, the only progressive there, opted out because of that as well. Maybe you should give him a two-page guest column to explain the history of his personal relationship with you, his reasons for resigning and allow him to talk about whatever else he wants. And let him leave the facts aside, too, although I’m not sure if that’s the official policy of the Herald, anyway.
Sorry dude, but “creating controversies” is the province of your paper. And keep going strong with that. Peace, and see ya at the Plaza!
Kyle,
I fear you took comments that I made to you out of context, but I can see how you might have misinterpreted them. I have no need to demand a two-page letter explaining my resignation to anybody, and Bargnes is correct that I resigned for personal reasons.
At this point it is more important for me to defend the Badger Herald than to stay private about anything. So here goes: I recently had a relapse of very severe major depressive disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, and could not handle the strain of being at the office until 2:00 in the morning most nights. I resigned for these personal reasons. My health takes first priority.
And Kyle, it was always my understanding that you resigned from the Herald for personal reasons as well — not the “same” personal reasons as me, but personal reasons nonetheless. So when I told you that my reasons were “probably the same as yours,” I almost certainly misspoke and overgeneralized, but I was indeed only talking about personal issues. If you think the Herald was ever anything less than courteous and supportive of my divergent political views, you would be wrong. The folks at the Herald are one of the finest groups of people I could find anywhere. And for the record, you cannot 1) claim in an earlier blog post that I was being courted by the Herald because they needed an “anti-leftist leftist, and 2) claim that I resigned because the Herald didn’t like my ideology.
As a popular blogger, Kyle, you had a responsibility to ask me to elaborate my statements during our EXTREMELY brief and pleasant conversation at Walgreens. You didn’t. You left just in time to walk away with whatever conclusion you wanted.
And if I need to report the actual facts, however personal, to make them clear to you — that I’m dealing with serious mental illness and needed to remove a major extracurricular activity to spare some time for class and graduate school applications — then so be it. I don’t need an apology. I just wanted to set things straight, and I know campus and the Herald is behind me.
Eric Schmidt
I should add that I’m in remission and doing very, very well currently, in case anyone on here is interested in more than fabricated campus intrigue.
There you have it.
Eric, I’m glad to hear that you are doing better and wish you well on your road to recovery.
I would say that I think you and Kevin are taking what I said way too seriously, and perhaps I’m taking this unimportant “fabricated campus intrigue” too seriously myself by even responding. If you re-read this thread, all I did was casually wonder aloud in like 10 words if your reasons for resigning were politically motivated. Kevin then decided to indulge this point (as opposed to my other points) because, as it turns out, it was the one that doesn’t make the Herald look bad. I then just continued the speculation; I never stated anything definitively. He can’t substantively respond to the other things I said (and as a result, does not respond to them) because he can say nothing truthful that would adequately defend his paper. The Herald has a disgraceful history of coverage of the left, especially over the past year or so, and this was why I resigned.
As it turns out, this wasn’t your reason, but again, I never did more here than ponder if it was. So please don’t make a big deal out of this as if I’m manufacturing a controversy and passing it off as a fact; again, doing that type of thing is the province of the Herald. Wondering aloud as I did is common and acceptable in blog forums and allows for the truth to be definitively stated by later commenters, as was the case here.
In sum, the real scandal is the fact that the Herald still pretends to be a fair and unbiased news source. Don’t you think that’s what is worth getting pissed off about?
I can’t “substantively respond” to baseless claims that appeal to insanity, ergo I refuse to acknowledge them as a way of keeping my own mental health.
In simpler terms, I don’t even know where to begin with you.
Indeed, pointing out the obvious bias at the Herald comprise “appeals to insanity.”
Sorry man, but intelligent people should be able to see right through you.
By the way, your “diversity” column from last week was was pretty awful. Something to consider: Stop talking down to and speaking for people of color. Your understanding of racial issues is as about as advanced as Sam Clegg’s, only you lack his mild wit.