<p>This is one of best articles I've read in the Columbia Spectator (our college newspaper).</p>
<p>I think it a gives a unique perspective on the constant struggle for opinion on campus; the writer is angry at those who are usually angry. </p>
<p>This is the mature yet ruthless Columbia that I love. </p>
<p>Who</a> the Hell Do They Think They Are? | Columbia Spectator</p>
<p>It takes 51 Columbia students to change a lightbulb
One student to change it, 10 to protest how it was changed, 15 to protest the previous 10, and 25 to protest the TWO PROTESTING groups. </p>
<p>Columbia, Columbia.</p>
<p>He makes great points and I totally agree with everything he says, but I wouldn’t consider it particularly well-written. This is exactly the type of writing that is ‘egotistical’ and ignorant of the reader’s limited patience. He could have accomplished what he did here with a concise paragraph, rather than with over-the-top rhetoric and needless repetition.</p>
<p>“rather than with over-the-top rhetoric and needless repetition.”</p>
<p>…but it’s Columbia!</p>
<p>yeah it is badly written, but i was citing it for pure content, and here he’s on the money.</p>
<p>What a waste of my time this article was. I didn’t need an incensed, rambling English major to tell me that private organizations try not to offend certain groups of people whom it is in their interest not to offend. If the author thinks that a certain publication is engaging in censorship, he can join with the others who whine about political correctness and publish his offensive views elsewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The type of censorship the author’s complaining about is the type of censorship practiced by every independent media outlet. The author has fooled himself into thinking that “free discourse” can exist within an organization; in fact, we attain “free discourse” only on the aggregate, through competition. He should be more outraged about the consolidation of the media industry than about the uninteresting fact that private organizations are free to decide what they will publish.</p>
<p>^missed the point kiddo. Firstly he spent a large portion of the article criticizing the spec (our college newspaper not a profitable or for-profit media outlet) for taking politically safe stances. He said that a culture of censorship is counter-productive and dangerous on college campus. He finally said that political correctness and excessive censorship ultimately undermines a publication’s long term success and credibility, this was the take home message. Most publications are short cited opting for short term gain over long term success. </p>
<p>What’s the best aspect of the Economist? - they opt for analysis on important issues in lieu of sensationalist news on urgent ones. Take the analogy.</p>
<p>The article is also a great portrayal of how revved up Columbia students become - a ruthlessly competitive market place of ideas.</p>
<p>I’m fully aware he was talking about campus journalism and the Columbia Spectator in particular. A newspaper does not have to be for-profit to adhere to the behavioural norm I’ve described above. All publications are interested in being as widely read as possible within their targeted demographic, so they tend not to **** off interest groups that command a significant following among their readership base.</p>
<p>And I didn’t totally miss the “take-home message”; rather, I chose to focus on its broader implications because the author was greatly exaggerating their gravity. Hyperbole tends to draw attention to itself. In any case, I think the “take-home message,” as a general statement, is false: it depends on the type of people who generally read the publication. Political correctness will find few enemies in Toronto, for example, where people are proud of the city’s liberalism and its policy of multiculturalism. That’s why the leftist Toronto Star has not and will never loose its credibility in the area.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>nope wrong, the spec is read by a tiny fraction of those on campus who could easily be reading it precisely because of the reasons cited by the author, it’s biased, politically correct and risk averse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>again you miss the context, the gravity is real, our basic college publication sucks. As another example: no-one with a brain watches or reads CNN anymore, because despite being moderate with many heavy weights they are sensationalist and politically correct, they too place short term gain over long term readership / viewers, CNN should be the best news source anywhere. Internationally, most (and many in the US) opt for the BBC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>what you mean is not necessarily true in all circumstance, but your example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>doesn’t do anything to support this hypothesis. You observe a politically correct and successful publication but their success might be in spite of their political correctness. Maybe they don’t have heavy-weight competition or are just very good at picking stories important to people / analysis. Also they’re a leftist paper and not necessarily a politically correct one. The New York times is leftist, widely read and not so caught up with censorship</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The specifics of this case don’t really matter. If it is in the Spec’s interest to become less politically correct, then it will probably do so sooner or later, and then all will be happy again. The mere fact that this article was published suggests that the Spec is receptive to calls for change. But if it doesn’t change, I don’t see the big deal. Like you said, it’s read by a tiny fraction of students anyway, so this author, if he is so upset, could either found a new newspaper and quite easily capture a comparable share of the market, or publish his stories in another outlet. Really, though, if he wanted the Spec to change its editorial ways, he’d be better off writing less incendiary and derisive articles.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You missed my point here. I said that the author was exaggerating the broader consequences of PC censorship (e.g., it’s “akin to anti-intellectualism”, “hampers free discourse”). The key word is “broader.” I’m sure the Spec is important to Columbia students, but the author shouldn’t make it sound like the decline of the Spec is the decline of free speech.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right: CNN is a joke among “learned” people (with the exception of Fareed Zakaria GPS, which attracts a lot of those MBA and IR types). But I think it’s more because of its sensationalism than because of its “political correctness.” I say this because many of the people who are put off by CNN will tune in to the BBC, which is just as politically correct (in different ways, of course) but not as sensationalist. So yes, you’re right that CNN has lost credibility in the eyes of the more learned among us, but what it loses in credibility among the learned, it gains in credibility among “real Americans.” Similarly, the Spec might lose credibility among the PC-haters, but it gains an equal amount of credibility among progressives who don’t like to offend historically oppressed groups. What will determine the long-term viability of the publication is the type of person that makes up the majority of the market and whether the publication is catering to that demographic.</p>
<p>This brings me to my next point: my example of the Toronto Star. I read that paper. I talk to others that read that paper, including my teachers and several faculty members at the University of Toronto. I assure you, they do not like it in spite of its political correctness. Most of the people who read the Star are, like me, advocates of multiculturalism who understand the power of words in forging a real multicultural country. Therefore, we support what conservatives tend to call “political correctness.”</p>
<p>And I don’t think you are very familiar with the Toronto Star, but I am – that’s why I used it as an example. It definitely has several heavy-weight competitors, and I would argue that its popularity in Toronto derives from its politics, of which “political correctness” is a part. And when I said it was leftist and politically correct, I did not mean to imply that all leftist publications are politically correct, although that tends to be the case.</p>