[Sometimes, however, deception may, in fact, be intentional. And if this is the case, I hope you will direct your concerns to me or to another news executive.]

Every story that is printed in The Crimson goes through at least two layers of editing. One, which is usually the more severe, occurs with the reporter looking on.

But one, the proof edit, occurs late at night, at a time when reporters should have already headed home.

These edits are intended to screen only for technical or grammatical mistakes. But sometimes proofers find larger problems and sometimes the reporter cannot be reached to consult on changes.

This policy is troublesome in many ways, but The Crimson has Yet to create a better system of screening the next day's paper while still allowing itself to produce one each day.

Laying out pages can pose the same problems. A story can come to the editor or proofer in perfect printability and still be changed to fit the space available in the next day's paper

The Crimson tries to avoid this as much as possible, but when editors and proofers do cut, they try to cut what they consider to be least important.

Often there is disagreement on these choices. I don't think what we print and what we don't is generally reflective of an institutional bias, though this concern has been raised in the past.

Cutting one person's quote is not indicative of anyone's regard for that person's opinion. Considerations are based on whether it's possible to express the same idea in a more efficient way.

Similarly, covering or not covering certain events is as much reflective of the proportion of The Crimson's staff willing to write on a given day as it is indicative of The Crimson's opinion of the relative importance of certain events.

A student newspaper staffed with student reporters who all want and need to go to classes some days and sleep some nights can be an erratic and sometimes unpredictable production.

I would address these issues in greater depth, but it appears I've already run out of room