🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jun11.225140.9807@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1v97q2INNhm1@skeena.ucs.ubc.ca> kawa@unixg.ubc.ca (Billy Poo) writes:
>>Had there been a referendum,
>>the student body would have brought the axe down on them, and not the AMS.
>>Let's face it--the Ubyssey is NOT a very popular paper.
>
>     And how do you know this without there being a referendum?
>And have you ever worked for the Ubyssey to try to change it if
>you don't like it?  Why or why not?

Everybody I've talked to, aside from the Ubyssey staffers themselves would tell
you that it is a piece of crap.  And I've been here for over four years and 
have talked to a lot of people here, so it is very doubtful that it merely
represents the opinions of a select few.

In answer to your next question, yes I have given it a try.  I didn't stay
very long though, because the environment and the people who made it up weren't
quite my type.  And frankly, I'm not really much of a journalist myself.
However, I do feel that there are plenty who would be willing to publish views
alternative to those of the Ubyssey, who wouldn't get very far if they were to
do so, thus having to start separate publications, such as the Campus Times.

>     The idea behind student newspapers is that the students
>support them financially so they can keep the students informed
>and act as a place for hands-on education in journalism.  The
>fact that this works is attested to by the large number of ex-
>Ubyssey staffers in journalism in Vancouver and elsewhere.

Like keep us informed on what THEY want us to be informed about.

The Campus Times seems to be doing a much better job at keeping us informed on
what is relevant to the students, and they can do so despite being financially
independent of student fees.  So if it can be done without the financial support
of students, then so much the better, since we're so strapped on cash anyways.

>     As far as I know The Ubyssey has never published material
>promoting hatred against identifiable groups.  That's what the
>nEUSletter was done for.  If you're talking about the sex issue
>of The Ubyssey, why has that kind of thing been OK for ten years
>but is not OK now?  And why didn't you join the staff to try to
>present something different if you think it's so bad?

Men?  Heterosexuals?

And besides, I would not consider the nEUSletter as promoting 'hatred'.  I'm not
condoning or justifying their actions in any way, but I merely see it as a
tasteless and insensitive attempt to humour.

Sure, some might read it, take it out of context, and develop a condescending
attitude toward homosexuals and natives, but that is the problem with the
individual.  And besides, it was no more hate-mongering than some of the Ubyssey
articles were towards heterosexual men.  (Like have you ever read some of the
Gay/Les/Bi and Womyn's issues?)

>     Censoring in the name of fighting "political correctness"
>is like fucking for celibacy.

So is censoring IN THE NAME OF "political correctness".  It's all a big hypocrisy.

-Bill Kawakami
 Politically incorrect devil's advocate.