uwryan.com 03 Jun 2002

Sense and accountability

Imprint must better serve readers

Imprint doesn't effectively serve its readers. Students believe what it prints too readily, it avoids criticism because of its position in the media and its monopoly allows it to avoid accountability.

Readers grant Imprint a credibility beyond what it deserves. It is the only campus-wide student newspaper at UW and with not much of an alternative to provide a basis for doubt, the tendency for people to believe what they read in print, and the strong Imprint brand, students have too much faith in the news published in these pages.

Much of the news is written by inexperienced reporters or students who have, or should have, higher priorities for their time. Writers come in with little knowledge, receive little training, and do insufficient research for their stories.

Barring random mistakes, the information presented in a news story is filtered through the limited understanding of the writer and then of the proofreaders and editors. In at least the past seven years, Imprint has never had a formal fact-checking process. The verification of facts is a necessary part of providing truth and Imprint has been failing at this.

In the May 17 issue of Imprint a youth who was arrested was reported as being a UW student of the same name; it is a false and unhelpful association as he applies to the optometry program.

In the prior issue, a writer mistakenly wrote that the Great Hall expansion as part of Watpaign had been abandoned based on poorly transcribed quotations.

In the Winter term, a writer was touted as an expert for his column "On Student Government." In it he reported that "Brubakers opened around the same time as Ground Zero." In fact, they opened two and a half years apart. Ground Zero was only four years and four months old at the time. He later wrote, "from a legal perspective, students council is just an advisory board with little or no power," when the Feds bylaws and the Ontario Corporations act disputes this notion.

Imprint is not accountable as it does not actively seek to serve readers' needs.

Students' opportunity to force the organization to account for its actions by withdrawing their funding exists for only the first three weeks of term when no more than a few issues have been published.

The levy on student fee statements from which Imprint draws significant funds is negative-billed; that is, it is taken from students as a voluntary contribution from which they must actively opt out to keep their money.

Students have to expend effort to keep their money rather than to donate it. In terms of this avenue of accountability, there are obstacles -- students cannot withdraw funding during the term but must wait until their next registered term instead, thus punishing the future for the sins of the past.

Imprint staff-members criticize students exercising the right to their money in the office and in the newspaper, as in the issue on January 11 of this year. Imprint must gauge the student body to ensure it is serving them well; Imprint is not doing this. There has only been one survey of readers since 1997 and results from that survey last year have never been compiled.

"No one dares criticize Imprint," I have heard more than one student leader say. Imprint avoids criticism because other organizations fear reprisal from a group seen as having the ear of students. As the largest student publication on campus, without significant competition, Imprint has a comfortable dominance on the delivery of campus news.

Imprint members and the organization as a whole must promote a new attitude and work to provide the truth, to solicit and be responsive to member concerns and to be open to criticism.

Originally published in Imprint 31 May 2002

To the Editor,

In her May 17 letter, Brenda Slomka referred to the notion of the Great Hall expanding into the Bombshelter as a "rumour." Both Yaacov Iland and Mike Kerrigan spoke publicly about this notion. It was not a rumour.

When I interviewed Yaacov on October 23, 2001 for a uwstudent.org story on the Great Hall expansion he said, "The federation has been wanting to renovate the Bomber for a while but has witheld doing so because it doesn't make sense to renovate it and have an expansion that breaks part of your renovations."

In the last issue of Imprint Brenda wrote, "Our organization [Feds] was not talking about our renovations." It sure sounded to me like he was talking about them.

Also, on March 13, 2002, before the Feds general meeting, Mike Kerrigan -- then-Vice-President Student Issues-elect -- said to me and one other person, "that wall [indicating the south, Bomber, wall of the Great Hall] will move out into the Bombshelter and the Bombshelter will move further out." This also sounded to me like talk of the Bombshelter expanding.

Yaacov believed that the Bombshelter would expand, and I spread this misinformation by believing him and reporting what he said. Mike also believed that the Bombshelter would expand. Did Brenda, as the third student member of the Watpaign committee, think otherwise? Or is she saying otherwise now to try to save face?

Catharine Scott also contributed to this notion by referring to the possibility of expanding into the Bombshelter in the joint uws-Imprint interview where Slomka, Iland, Kerrigan, Ann Simpson and Judy McCrae were present.

The Watpaign proposal includes an area of expansion of the SLC about equal to the area of the additional floor. Any expansion of the Great Hall was never intended to include building expansion but perhaps renovation of existing space.

The problems are that the Watpaign plans were not properly developed nor were they understood by the student representatives. Now, embarrassed by their mistakes, Feds are trying to write it off as miscommunication rather than negligence.

—Ryan Chen-Wing

Sense and accountability

Imprint must better serve readers

Feds embarrassed by Watpaign