September 23, 2007

4-Word Editorial Proves Costly for Student Paper

A four-word editorial — containing an infamous four-letter expletive and an attack on President Bush — has cost Colorado State University’s student-run newspaper an estimated $30,000 in advertising revenue, the Fort Collins Coloradoan reported.

The editorial, in The Rocky Mountain Collegian on Friday, read “Taser this … F-     BUSH,” with the vulgarity spelled out. It ran on the same day as an article about free speech in relation to a University of Florida incident in which the campus police used a Taser stun gun to subdue a student protester at a political speech.

The Collegian’s editor, J. David McSwane, said the decision to run the editorial had been approved by a split vote of the paper’s seven-member editorial board. He told The Denver Post he didn’t know how much money the paper had lost but confirmed that some advertisers had withdrawn and that some salaries, including his own, would be cut. The student publication receives no money from the university and depends entirely on advertising revenue.

In a statement posted on the student paper’s Web site after the editorial ran, Mr. McSwane said the editors’ intentions “were not to cause harm, but rather to reinforce the importance of free speech.”

Colorado State’s president, Larry Edward Penley, also issued a written statement on Friday, saying he was disappointed in the editorial decision. Mr. Penley emphasized that the university had no authority to censor or regulate the paper’s content and suggested that concerned readers contact Mr. McSwane and “the Board of Student Communications, which hires and, if necessary, removes student editors from office.” —Charles Huckabee

Comments

1. While the evidence linking the tasering incident to President Bush is tenuous at best, the fact is that this country is too sensitive in the use of language. These students were just making a legitimate argument.

   Just so you know, I am a Republican but not a Bush supporter. I’m not an anti-Bush zealot, either. That doesn’t change my view that these students have an editorial right to say what they said.

   — Michael    Sep 24, 06:21 AM    #

2. Michael – I agree completely and am in a political status similar to yours. The editors should be free to make the decision to run that “editorial” and then run it. That said. . .

   The advertisers should be free to withdraw their advertising. . . the College president should be free to criticise the decision and in fact, encourage others to criticize it. . . and readers should be free to change their reading habits.

   The editor deserves credit, by the way, for taking responsibility and reducing his own salary, among others, apparently as a result of the revenue decrease. Apparently he, unlike the Dixie Chicks, realizes that free speech is not free of responsibility.

   — Bill    Sep 24, 07:10 AM    #

3. You are missing the point, I think. The issue is not freedom of the press but rather the striking foolishness of the “college” editors. Their adolescent nonsense embarrassed the school and its alumni who preceeded them. It was John Kerry who was in the room when the Florida student was tasered, not George Bush, for starters. The use of profanity speaks for itself.

   — Bob Sarbane    Sep 24, 08:12 AM    #

4. I worked for a conservative Republican in Congress, but never considered myself one, however never has this country faced such severe losses in freedom of speech, privacy, etc. While I support the right of the message front page, in reality the advertising support will disappear and, no surprise, inability to publish. And you have no voice! One can steer clear of the “F” word and convey the same message.

   — Jim Nolting    Sep 24, 08:38 AM    #

5. Although I can understand the freedom of speech thing. This was probably not the smartest editorial to put in print. These things have repurcussions for sure.

   — Rick Elder    Sep 24, 08:41 AM    #

6. I too am not a Bush supporter, but there comes a point where plain common sense has to be used. As citizens, we have become desensitized to certain forms of profanity. Frankly, it is time students, and student newspapers, grew up. People in this country can say almost anything, but there is responsibility for the use of our words.

   — Bob Harris    Sep 24, 08:43 AM    #

7. What happened to the days when seemingly intelligent people could make a point without gutteral profanity? These are students educated at a highly respected university. If they really can’t think of another way to make a point about free speech, perhaps they should ask for their tuition back. Obviously, they have not gotten an education or perhaps, they simply chose to ignore it.

   — Carlette Whitesides    Sep 24, 08:57 AM    #

8. Child-like behavior: a hallmark of youth at today’s universities. People in the real world will just blink and yawn.

   — Otto T.    Sep 24, 09:26 AM    #

9. Freedom comes with responsibility. Lesson learned.

   — John    Sep 24, 09:42 AM    #

10. The advertisers are free to make their own editorial statements as well. They simply choose to do so by removing their support for the paper. What’s good for the goose…

    — Another Michael    Sep 24, 09:45 AM    #

11. Bill, (post #2) — I’m not at all convinced the editor “deserves credit … for reducing his own salary, among others,” as you write.

    The story states that the editor simply reported that salaries, including his own, would be cut. My guess is that the Board of Student Communications made the necessary decision to cut salaries when the ad revenues disappeared.

    That’s a very different thing. If I were among those who disagreed with the editorial — remember, it was a split vote among the editorial board — and my salary was cut, I’d be very frustrated and angry.

    The so-called “editorial” was sophomoric and childish. Those among the publications staff who disagreed with it do not deserve to have their livelihood affected by it. I give this so-called editor absolutely no credit of any kind.

    — JPS    Sep 24, 10:35 AM    #

12. The market has reacted with the withdrawal of advertising dollars. Just as corporate America can see such things have an adverse financial effect, so can college newspapers. I do find the use of profanity to represent just a of professionalism and decency. Regretable that such language is used. No wonder that print readership continues to decline.

    — John S.    Sep 24, 10:37 AM    #

13. Student newspapers are still considered learning opportunities, no? Sounds like one just knocked again…

    — Cal    Sep 24, 10:40 AM    #

14. I am concerned about the intent of those businesses that cancelled their ads. If it were a “good” business choice to advertise in the student paper a week ago, why would it not still be a good place to advertise a week later? The answer may be that the businesses are not making a valid business choice but rather are attempting to silence speech (critical of the President) that they disagree with. That would make it censorship by use of economic power — a reprehensible action, rather than a free market, informed business decision — a valid use of power.

    — william    Sep 24, 10:42 AM    #

15. I have met many brilliant newspaper editors and writers, and none of them have to use vulgarities to get their point across. A very wise man once said that profanity is the attempt of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.

    — almost a graduate    Sep 24, 10:50 AM    #

16. There are certain times when only a gutter expletive can express an emotion, and no other words will do. Our current government of gangsters and opportunists, run by the morally bankrupt for the exclusive benefit of their patrons, inspires these emotions in me all the time. I may not say it, but I think it.

    — Philip J Tramdack    Sep 24, 10:59 AM    #

17. There is another issue here. I tell my Critical Thinking students that they should keep emotion out of their arguments (obviously this editorial did not). I also tell them to respect the Office of the President. Whether they love or hate a President, they should still respect the office, even if they don’t respect the man. The media has helped desensitize us to this by simply calling men who have been President by their last name without the word “President” in front of it—never mind using profanity. I agree with those who have called this a matter of immaturity and not one not free speech. There are other, more mature ways to say what they said in four words.

    — linda    Sep 24, 11:00 AM    #

18. I’m at CSU and I absolutely support the right of the students to be as stupid and juvenile as they wish to be. In fact, this wasn’t even a coherent expression – just an outburst in print. Freedom of speech gives us all the right and opportunity to make fools of ourselves in public. We also are obligated to bear the consequences…and those come next, both in terms of advertising cutbacks and social sanctions.

    Let’s not confuse this with journalism. As pointed out above, it was an adolescent expression that reflects on credit on the supposed “journalistic” skills of the students. This is nothing like journalism, since journalists have taste and can express themselves and get their point across without profanity.

    But it clearly falls wtihin the bounds of free speech.

    — Al    Sep 24, 11:01 AM    #

19. God bless America where we can all agree to disagree and still respect one another.

    — Solomon    Sep 24, 11:27 AM    #

20. It’s often the “young and reckless” who make the world a better place. The “wisdom” of holding one’s tongue or pen often precedes the shame of doing so. Good for them!

    — David Zetland    Sep 24, 12:12 PM    #

21. I’m surprised that so many student newspaper readers, advertisers, college administrators and, apparently, Chronicle readers have their worlds so easily shaken by encountering the word FUCK in print. I suppose no one posting here has ever used it. Makes me wonder if people other than the “immature” student editors are the folks with some growing up to do.

    — Shannon    Sep 24, 12:26 PM    #

22. Mr. Rivera-Olivetti: That was an excellent bit of demagoguery in the service of critiquing demagogues.

    Your assumption that demagogues, in your bit of demagoguery, are all of a particular political persuasion unfortunately only undermines your position.

    Unfortunately for all of us, both ends of the political spectrum seem to shout so loudly that public discourse becomes increasingly difficult, as many posters have already noted.

    — John Laudun    Sep 24, 12:28 PM    #

23. “Free Speech” was never intended to become slander with no regard. It is almost a shame that it is so easy to say or write whatever you want without any consequences – as long as you place it under Free Speech. Didn’t work for Don Imus, and it should not work for immature college students — or anyone else.

    — Gary T    Sep 24, 12:35 PM    #

24. The hypocrisy and unintentional irony of Mr. Rivera-Olivetti’s ‘insights’ have already been noted (#23, in reference to #20). Perhaps he could at least do readers the service of trotting out the usual parroted tag lines (either ‘liberal media’ or ‘liberal academia’ seem to be applicable in 100% of such cases) to assign blame with ideological efficiency. While doing so would not make his ridiculous diatribe any more accurate or insightful, it would at least make it considerably briefer, which would allow sensible readers to move on to something meaningful and would allow Mr. Rivera-Olivetti to return to wallowing in his solipsistic, distorted, and bitter little universe.

    — John    Sep 24, 01:21 PM    #

25. The taser incident was so disturbing and raised so many questions—and this is the best editorial that this paper could come up with on this subject? The language doesn’t bother me. The complete lack of an eloquent arguement astounds me!

    — Jonathan Weller    Sep 24, 02:11 PM    #

26. I am afraid that most people have missed the point of the editorial, disgusted by what happened to the student protester at the Kerry speech (and why wasn’t it mentioned in this article who was speaking in the TASER incident?) these students felt the need to assert the fact that you should be allowed freedom of speech, especially regarding public figures, in this country. Also, what they did was not libel, it was simply a statement of strong dislike. I was an editor at my college newspaper and I can testify that the scare tactics taken by the administration in this case demonstrate their desire to control campus expression in order to please whatever corporate and political donors they have (not to mention the parents who are mostly paying for tuition). However, the fact is that those advertisers will return as it is the only effective means to reach a large student body with lots of spending money and though there may be movements for “independent” papers, the student paper will continue as the main student voice on campus. And finally, these editors should be seen as leaders, not immature or childish, they took an issue that should matter to the whole student body and forced everyone to face it.

    — Malcolm Furgol    Sep 24, 02:43 PM    #

27. While the stunt was juvenile and demonstrated poor journalistic skills, I’m struck that no one has mentioned the way in which this story also demonstrates the extent to which freedom of speech is facilitated or constrained by financial resources.

    — Charlotte    Sep 24, 02:58 PM    #

28. Um, didn’t Vice President Cheney give the f-word official and public imprimatur when he used it on the floor of the Senate?

    — db    Sep 24, 03:31 PM    #

29. These students went too far. Does this vulgarity represents free speech? In the name of FREE SPEECH, these students used poor judgement and demonstrated their stupidity.

    — Kan Chandras    Sep 24, 11:28 PM    #

30. Tommy DeVito as college newspaper editor. Who knew?

    — marci    Sep 25, 03:10 PM    #

31. I think the editorial was actually quite clever. By its own vulgarity and reference to the taser event, it challenges free speech, implicitly connects Bush to a loss of freedoms (for which he has been responsible), and expresses an opinion on Bush that is probably shared by many Americans and much of the world.

    — Peter R.    Sep 27, 03:56 PM    #

32. Honestly, the issue here is not the student editor’s first amendment rights. He certainly has his right of free speech: Praise the Lord for American democracy and constitution. I happen to believe that every kind of language has its proper place. The “F” four letter word does not belong where the editor has it. But, truth be told, the customers who withdrew their advertising also exercised their free speech rights. At that point we must consider the good old economic decision of the owners of the newspaper and the leaders of the institution that slapped the editor on the wrist. I just believe that the editor should have been given a whack on the bottom so he does not do this again. Better yet, he should have been fired; not for exercising his free speech rights, but poor judgement about the appropriate place to exercise certain kinds of free speech. To clarify the point, the editor has the right to fart or defacate, but in the right place, for example in the toilet or in his bedroom

    — CHINYERE EMMANUEL EGBE    Oct 5, 04:15 PM    #

Previous: Monitor's Report Is Said to Allege Doctored Grades at Medical Campus
Next: Iowa Universities Help Banks Market Credit Cards to Students, Newspaper Says