Another take on the Plainsman’s editorial

3Niki Doyle • 16th Feb 2009 • Auburn • Auburn University, blogs, Newspaper, The Auburn Plainsman

Robert French, a public relations professor at Auburn University, wrote a blog post today about The Auburn Plainsman’s above-the-flag editorial demanding that its general manager get the boot. (For background, see my earlier post and The Plainsman’s editorial.)

It’s interesting to see an opinion from someone who has no ties to The Plainsman. Most of us are too close to the situation to have an objective opinion. Mr. French also raised an interesting point that demonstrates the bias: Most of the comments supporting The Plainsman’s decision are from anonymous posters. Many of the ones chastising the editorial board are signed with first and last names.

I’m getting tired of folks dodging the issue. As Mr. French pointed out in his blog, the editorial doesn’t directly address the problem. The board claims that it wants the general manager replaced because she isn’t producing enough revenue for the paper. Some points that need to be made:

• If this is the sole reason the editorial board wants her fired, then it was absolutely inappropriate to run this editorial. All of us are facing tough times. This is like using C-4 explosives to crack open a peanut.
• If there are other reasons (which, as a former editor, I have heard the rumors), then the staff should have been upfront about them in the editorial. They didn’t spell them out, and have since declined further comment to the media. I believe — and this is just conjecture — that the staff didn’t mention them because they have no proof of their accusations. For example,* if the staff believed money was being mishandled, they should have called The Plainsman’s lawyer and brought in an auditor. Former Plainsman adviser Ed Williams said in an e-mail that he brought his concerns to the dean of students repeatedly, but “the problems were never addressed.” Maybe, just maybe, the dean couldn’t find enough proof of these problems to fire a longtime university employee. Again, an editorial is not the answer.
• I don’t think anyone leaving comments or blogging about this issue (myself included) are trying to make the editorial board feel inferior to past editors or writers. I was not perfect as Plainsman editor (far from it), and I am not perfect now. The mistake here is not in their beliefs or in their desire to replace the general manager — that’s the way they feel, and they are entitled to those feelings. However, it is simply an abuse of the paper to use it for personal gain. What else could this be?

* This is purely an example that came to mind as a “worst-case scenario” and is not mean to insinuate that this is the case at The Plainsman. Yes, it’s unfortunate if you don’t think your general manager is doing a good job, but in my mind, the worst that can happen is having the general manager (or any employee, for that matter) engaging in illegal or unethical activity. In this type of worst-case scenario, the best solution is to contact a lawyer. This is simply further proof that an editorial was unnecessary, and probably caused more harm than good.