0 4A - Monday, February 20, 2012 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com ASHLEY GRIESSHAMMER JOSEPH LICHTERMAN and ANDREW WEINER JOSH HEALY EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS MANAGING EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. Imran Syed is the public editor. He can be reached at publiceditor@michigandaily.com. Value editorial freedom Business interests shouldn't dictate coverage ree speech is an integral aspect of the American Dream. It's possibly the first and most utilized right in the United States, and one that is often taken for granted. It's inappropriate for any city to lose this basic right. If nowhere else, the city of Philadel- phia should remember that. The Liberty Bell and the University of Pennsylvania, founded by Benjamin Franklin, are daily reminders of it. The coming sale and subsequent censoring of the city's newspapers like The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Philadelphia Daily News is a significant misstep away from all that the city represents. News and media within Philadelphia must remain reliable. Newspapers must stay objective as an integral part of free society despite whatever eco- nomic or political happenings are going on behind the scenes. I don't know why we're spending all this time talking about (marriage equality)." - Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said on NBC's "Meet the Press" when he was asked if the nation should be discussing same-sex marraige. FROM THE PUBLIC EDITOR I The words of others Since the Philadelphia Media Network announced that it would be up for sale, there's been a significant amount of inter- est in purchasing the network - consisting of The Inquirer, The Daily News and Philly. com. The largest and most powerful source is a group of executive Democratic investors, led by Ed Rendell, the former Philadelphia mayor, former governor of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Democratic National Com- mittee. Last week, CEO and Publisher of the Philadelphia Media Network Gregory Osberg announced within the company that he would oversee all articles produced regard- ing the sale of the company. He went on to say that if any ran without his personal approval, those involved would be fired, including both the writers and editors. The sale and corresponding censoring of the newspaper stems from a concern within the company itself. Older forms of publishing specifically newspapers, have had trouble coping with and adjusting to an increasing- ly online and decreasingly profitable busi- ness model. Twitter, the "blogosphere" and 24-hour cable news cycles have changed the game. It's become progressively harder for newspapers to reach a disappearing niche. The censorship of articles to favor certain prospective buyers is an attempt on the part of the management to keep both public con- cern and private fervor to a minimum until the deal goes through. However, that concern is not an excuse to censor what should be public information. Newspapers, the only type of business men- tioned in the Constitution, cannot simply sell their content or focus to the highest bidder. The spread of information is a crucial institu- tion ina democratic system. It keeps the public knowledgeable and institutions reliable and accountable. Investment in media is an invest- ment in literary freedom and free speech, not an attempt to facilitate personal interests and intentions of the buyers within society. This is especially true, and a bit unnerving, when the buyers are well-known political bosses. It's unfortunate that the print media indus- try is in a current dire financial situation. That doesn't mean, however, that editors should cen- sor or bias their content and mission to accom- modate financial interests. It's impossible to say newspapers are without bias or any con- flict of interests, but they must do everything within their power to retain editorial integrity. In a political era fraughtwith wealthy lobbying interests, journalism must find a way to retain its objective and integral role. Being responsible for your own words is hard enough, but it's noth- ing compared to being responsible for the words of others. Yet, that is a large part of the everyday task of all Michigan Daily editors. Unsur- prisingly, things don't always go smoothly. Last week, a student brought to my attention an op-ed viewpoint submission he had made to the editorial page. The student was annoyed that the ultimate version of the viewpoint that was printed mangled his apparent thesis - a result of a haphazard and drastic cutting process, he said. There's no doubt that something went wrong in editing that particular piece, and I thought I'd use that issue to launch a broader discussion of the Daily's editing process. Editors of every section of this paper have the responsibility of revising and perfecting the work of staff writers in their sections. Editorial page editors have an added responsibility of review- ing and editing submissions made by outsiders, such as viewpoints and letters to the editor. The bal- ance between allowing the writer's voice to come through and printing the most polished piece possible is a tough one to navigate. Yet both responsibilities are immensely important. I remember that in my years as an arts writer, there was no more oppressive a feeling than picking up the Daily before class one morn- ing and finding that a movie review I had spent hours working on had been squished into a tiny space, chopped viciously and robbed of all character. Though I learned to deal with it better, that used to happen to me even as a senior writer. I'm sure writers in every section of this paper know what I'm talk- ing about. While there are all sorts of people writing for the Daily, they have one thing in common: they consider writing to be their strength. So, to have an article be completely rewritten in editing can be a maddening occurrence. Mad- dening, but often necessary. As writers (hopefully) learn quickly, there is no submission that can't be improved by a smart, focused editor. And if the writer can be involved in the editing pro- cess, then that's even better - not only does the piece itself improve, but the writer also learns lessons to be applied in future work. Collaborative editing with staff writers should be practiced in every section of this paper as much as possible. But, in addition to being a staff writer, I was also an editor, so I can see the other side of this coin too. A newspaper has deadlines, and, as student-jour- nalists, editors are always shorton time. There won't always be time to sit down with a writer to do a collaborative edit, and often, it can seem like just a tedious addition to daily editing duties. I fought that mindset as an edi- tor myself, so I know the impor- tance of overcoming it. At a student newspaper, the mission is not just to cover the news and provide commentary, but also to improve as writers and journalists, and then pass on what you learn to the next class of writers. The tedium of teaching the proper way to do things through a collaborative edit is a big part of the job. The task of editing the submis- sions of outsiders, such as letters to the editor, is an added challenge. There is no face-to-face editing in this context, and there isn't always time to contact the submitter to get clarifications or corrections. While the Daily will sometimes send an edited piece back to the outside writer to proofread, this practice has pitfalls, and I always thought best to avoid it. As an independent editorial voice, the Daily has the right to properly and fairly edit all submis- sions for clarity, veracity and space constraints. But this task must be given the utmost attention because when mistakes occur, it's easy for outsiders to criticize the paper's processes or intentions. Should the Daily fail on this front by mak- ing too many mistakes, it may have no choice but to cede to outside submitters some of the editorial authority it has - something that should be avoided. My feeling is that most problems in the editing of stories come from a lack of focus: It's easy for an edi- tor to lose sight of the importance of one piece when dealing with numerous submissions each night. But consider that each of those pieces is written by an individual who doesn't care how well you edited all the other pieces on the page that night. Proper editing of submissions is part of the Daily's mission of responsiveness to read- ers, and it is a responsibility that deserves attention. " -The public editor is an independent critic of the Daily, and neither the editorial board nor the editor in chief exercise controlover the contents of his columns. The opinions expressed do not necessarily constitute the opinion of the Daily. Imran Syed can be reached at publiceditor@michigandaily.com L EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Aida Ali, Laura Argintar, Kaan Avdan, Ashley Griesshammer, Nirbhay Jain, Jesse Klein, Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Harsha Panduranga, Timothy Rabb, Adrienne Roberts, Vanessa Rychlinski, Sarah Skaluba, Seth Soderborg, Caroline Syms, Andrew Weiner SHREYA SINGH AND ETHAN HAHN | youMICHfor our campus A parody of itself The Central Student Government is com- prised of well-intentioned representatives, but a blanket of apathy has smothered their promises. Representatives are trapped in a system that isn't focused on what the stu- dents want from their government. Our goal is to reinvigorate that system and change CSG into a student-focused government. When we elect our student leaders on campus to repre- sent our interests within the University com- munity and beyond, it's necessary that those leaders remember the students and their ideas. It's a fact that is easily forgotten, but needs to become the motto of student govern- ment. This year, we want to revert the focus of CSG back to students, back to student life and student organizations and back to you. We invite you to become part of our effort - our movement - to change the focus of stu- dent government here on campus and to join our party, youMICH, as we seek to make stu- dent government all about you. The youMICH party is led by Business School junior Shreya Singh and LSA junior Ethan Hahn, running for president and vice president, respectively. During our service as CSG treasurer and chairman of the LGBT Issues Commission, we have invested our time into CSG throughout our college careers and have fought to maintain an emphasis on the needs of the student body. Singh has worked extensively with student organiza- tions on campus, ensuring the transformation of the funding process with the CSG Student organization Funding Commission, while Hahn has worked alongside administrators and faculty to continually improve student life and the campus environment, specifically initiating the Department of Queer Studies campaign. If elected president and vice presi- dent of CSG, we pledge to refocus student government's priorities on the three specific areas that impact you the most: your student academics, your student organizations and your campus environment. We have formed the youMICH party to ensure that candidates running in this spring's CSG elections are focused on the constituency they serve - the wants and needs of Michigan students. Potential you- MICH representatives' projects will include the following: breakfast with Brady Hoke on the Diag, a website called Rate My Landlords to increase dialogue between students and realtors, continued town hall meetings and an initiative to address police noise violations with the Greek community. Our party's main goals are to review and improve the Univer- sity financial aid process, to work with the Center for Campus Involvement to create and maintain a University-wide student organi- zation events calendar and to sponsor more high-attendance events, concerts and pep rallies for students. For more background on our platform, check out our Facebook page at Vote youMICH. We are proud of the projects we've proposed and hope that others will join the movement we've started on campus. Though we are a new student political party, we have experience both on and off CSG that has given us insight regarding what things we want to change and the practical know-how to facilitate those changes. How- ever, what we change will be driven by your needs. We believe we can unite the cam- pus as we all are composed of diverse back- grounds, different communities, experiences and ambitions. We invite you to come join us in our venture for a new and improved stu- dent body government. We want to make it all about you, including your academics, your student organizations and your campus envi- ronment. We want you to be part of the move- ment. Shreya Singh is CSG treasurer and a Business junior. Ethan Hahn is chairman of the LGBT Issues Commission and an LSA junior. don't watch much television. Really, I don't have the time. But the other day, having a rare bit of down- time, I decided to kick back and scan through the channels. I landed on CNN.A What I saw disgusted me. Between talk of DANIEL Whitney Hous- CHARDELL ton's untimely death and the unrelenting bloodshed in Syria, the screen was filled with images of Republican presidential candidates spewing hatred, arrogance and out- right lies in their desperate attempt to secure their party's nomination. Mitt Romney's floundering cam- paign would be sad - if he weren't so robotic. Whether wooing Flor- ida seniors with a stiff rendition of "America the Beautiful" or insisting that he is in fact a "severely con- servative" candidate, the man can't shed his Richie Rich image. (To be fair, singing on the campaign trail isn't a tactic exclusive to Republi- cans. In January, President Obama gave us a few lines of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." But hey, at least Obama had fun with it. Rom- ney's performance, on the other hand, seemed more like a contrac- tual obligation.) And as for Rick Santorum, he's been busy warning voters of Obama's ostensible war on religion as part of his broader scheme to charm the religious right. What's my favorite recent Santorum-ism? That President Obama's "overt hostility to faith in America" is leading us to "the guillotine." Yes, he really said this on multiple occasions. These were the sorts of things I was seeing on the news that day. Just as I was wondering, "Why in the world I was subjecting myself to this garbage?" CNN cut to a com- mercial break. What came on next? An attack ad against Santorum put out by Restore Our Future, a pro- Romney super PAC. I guess it was inevitable that I'd encounter one of these ads. As of Feb. 17, Restore Our Future had bought more than $3.2 million in media space in Michigan, The Hufington Post reported. In response, the Red White and Blue Fund, a pro-Santo- rum super PAC, is set to spend $1.1 million in airtime and TV in the state. All of these buys may be pumping a bit of extra money into the Michi- gan economy, but any potential benefits will certainly come at the expense of our sanity. And then, on Saturday, I had another unanticipated encoun- ter with the Michigan Republican primary. Stopped at a red light on Hill Street, I saw Romney's cam- paign bus drive by. It wasn't quite as flashy as Sarah Palin's now-infa- mous Constitution-wrapped bus in which she toured the country last summer, but it gets the point across. Stenciled beneath the words "Con- servative, Businessman, Leader" is his campaign's stirring slogan: "Believe in America." I wondered how much Romney actually believes in his "Believe in America" catch phrase or whether it was simply the slogan that test- ed best in his well-funded focus groups. Like alot of us, I can'tstandAmer- ican politics. It makes my blood boil. But whatever you do, politics won't leave you alone and it shouldn't. It follows you wherever you go. As Romney and Santorum descend upon Michigan like vultures, tear each other down in their eagerness to secure their place in history and (I hope) hand President Obama his sec- end term along the way, I encourage you to participate in politics with the knowledge that we can only get out of the democratic process what we put into it. The political process is a theatri- cal production: it's tedious, and it's staged drama. I know how hard it is to stomach the absurdities of elec- tions, and I know how easy it would be to turn off the television when a candidate gives us a smile as he dances coyly around the question he was asked, but don't let it alien- ate you. There will be insinceri- ties, all the more so as we approach Super Tuesday and the general election itself, but don't let them drive you away. The political process is a tedious and staged drama. Politics has become a parody of itself. That much is obvious. But it's a twisted irony that this thing we call politics also has a bearing on everything that matters - national security, warfare, taxes, tuition costs, economic inequality, civil rights, healthcare and so on. To let the Romneys and Santorums disaf- fect you from the theatrical process would increase the likelihood that you'll be dissatisfied with the tan- gible outcome of their work. As the melodramatic political bat- tle for Michigan begins, and as we near next Tuesday's primary, think about that. - Daniel Chardell can be reached at chardell@umich.edu.