In the Nov. 12 article "SA Begins Investigation into The Spectrum's Budget," which should not have been written by a Spectrum staff member in order to retain your objectivity and integrity, you claim to have been singled out for review by the Student Association due to past relations, and that this amounts to censorship.
Those claims are pretty far from the truth, however. I believe it is unfair to entirely blame SA, as The Spectrum is just as much responsible for the situation at hand, if not more. SA's efforts are not a vendetta against The Spectrum but one of the ways in which the SA administration is following up on the promises they made before taking office.
As has been evident since April 2003, George Pape's administration takes its responsibilities seriously by making great efforts to ensure that their constituents are fairly represented and that their funds are not misused in any way. It is therefore only natural that SA should be evaluating their relationship with The Spectrum.
If one considers the above and adds the negative, biased and badly researched coverage that SA has often received in The Spectrum over the past few years, the present investigation is indeed nothing more than a result of a string of events combined with a dedicated and competent SA legislative body. The Spectrum should consider itself fortunate that SA did not file suit against The Spectrum for libel considering some of the substandard coverage which sometimes put SA in a particularly bad light. Censorship does not enter into this at all as I am sure that the SA administration is not at all opposed to improving relations with The Spectrum.
Further into the same issue, the opinion page contains more half-truths and lies. The first example is "Committee to Review The Spectrum" where the unnamed editor claims that students' voices no longer mean anything to the SA administration and that the latter are doing "a poor job of showing their concerns." This is blatantly untrue as I have personally always found open ears within the upper levels at SA and have experienced firsthand how a good idea can result in positive change in the ways in which SA is run, all this without actually ever being a Senator or executive board member.
Causing positive change within SA does not require campaign donations, bribes or threats. A mere positive attitude and a strong will to see things through will do and I cannot recall of anyone being refused the chance to speak before the SA assembly or senate.
The second example is "All Shoock Up," where after having read said ghastly piece of journalism, I would like to congratulate Corey Shoock on being nothing more than the people he is allegedly superior to. If he was really interested in politics, he would know that the SA administration is not about smoke and mirrors and empty promises but actually often delivers on what it promises, as opposed to the Bush administration which takes away people's fundamental rights while promising freedom. If Shoock's interest is so great then perhaps he (and his colleagues too, mind you) could do like a good journalist should and get the facts straight from the people in charge.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
