Comments on: Reader Hammers ODE for Printing “Biased” Column

By: Alex Tomchak Scott

Alex Tomchak Scott — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:57:52 +0000

I thought the most striking part was the juxtaposition of her censuring “an article laced with unsupported judgment” and then proclaiming that Jimmy Carter had “truthfully anti-Semitic beliefs.”

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:27:33 +0000

Yeah, I think you really hit the nail on the head with the oxymoron that is “unbiased opinion.” And it’s true that the Emerald gave her a format to provide exactly what she felt was missing: a cogent, factually accurate rebuttal to Jemmali’s claims. Instead, she chose to argue for censorship on the op-ed page.

I’m a big advocate for the editorial page including all viewpoints, especially those that may be unpopular or radical. That’s what it’s there for. If people are offended by a column, they should write in and dispute its veracity. Arguing for censorship on hot-button ideas is something I just can’t tolerate.

By: Matt Petryni

Matt Petryni — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:14:07 +0000

Also: we did try point-counterpoint last year and on a couple occasions earlier this year, but it never seemed to stick. We’ve struggled in the past trying to staff a diverse opinion desk while still being able to ensure columnists are competent and well-informed. Maybe next year a more targeted recruitment effort, (which to Robert’s credit, he’s now doing) will result in a opinion desk of greater ideological diversity that, while still proficient writers and researchers, can provide the readership with a richer conversation.

By: Matt Petryni

Matt Petryni — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:05:56 +0000

Excellent points, Dan. I totally agree. I don’t think Jemmali’s most recent guest commentary was the best reader submission we’ve run all year, by any means, but when people question his very right to submit it I get a little irritated. Weismman’s piece obviously made little sense from its very start, where she asserts that the ODE (not Jemmali) have the responsibility of making sure even the opinions of others are “unbiased.” I wish, instead of attacking the Emerald’s interest in giving voice to members of the community though their guest commentary, she had written a sophisticated and effective response to those views of Jemmali’s she disagrees with. Further, I beg Weismman to demonstrate what an “unbiased opinion” might look like, as it seems a complete contradiction in terms.

We could run only opinions agreeing with Jemmali’s view, if we wanted, and there would frankly be no problem with it, as surely another outlet might provide readers with the opposing argument, their right as a free press. I think the Emerald, though, chooses not to do so because I think we feel it advances a more productive conversation and expands readership to feature well-informed and reasoned arguments from both sides. But this should remain an institutional choice, and by no means should the paper feel obligated to do so beyond the personal volition of its leadership.

I also enjoyed the chosen headline, “Emerald should run unbiased opinions.” I hear some Kaitlin Kenny in those five words’ ability to expose this letter for the nonsense it was.