Sunday, March 11, 2007

when i was at the campus newspaper at MPU (major, prestious university), we would vote on what columns and cartoons to run. the managing editor, a nice guy, had gotten his poorly-drawn, immature cartoon of which he was very fond approved the prior semester. this time, we all voted on it, and i was pleased to see it rejected. we all got up to leave. most did. suddenly one editor said the cartoon meant a lot to the M.E., and we should all vote again. we did, and with most of the staff gone and merely the editors remaining, it was voted back in. i don't like it when people mess with the agreed process on behalf of their perception of others' emotional needs.

it turns out that i thought that the proper process regarding writing was that anything was ok for others to write, but that they should then apologize for it, explain it, or stand by it. publication includes anything you write and show to someone else -- including private mail. one time a photographer snapped an unflattering shot of drunken local pols. this was in the days of film cameras, and the pols leaned hard on our top editor to get the negative -- lest the opposition could use the shot as ammo. top editor then sweated the photog. i told photog not to give in. i believed in truth.

he gave in, and the top editor gave the negative to the pols. i have contempt for those types of behaviors. i'm a marketplace-of-ideas guy. but most people do not have faith in open debate, they'd rather avoid honesty.
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by