A reporter once explained to me the importance of ensuring the independence of a paper's editorial and business departments. Keeping these two boards out of each other's affairs guarantees the freedom of writers to report on any and all matters, including the publication's sponsors; if this freedom were suppressed by business interests, a journalist's pursuit of truth would be farcical. Likewise, the advertising board should be able to gain revenue from any sponsors, within broad guidelines of taste, regardless of the editorial board's stated opinion. The Crimson surprisingly showed maturity in publishing an advertisement contrary to its views.
The letter from the Students for Choice, by contrast, displayed a disturbing lack of maturity and analysis. While the writers profess to "welcome overt discussion and opinions regarding the abortion debate," their letter apparently complains that the Crimson has allowed the opposing viewpoint to be presented.
Second, the group deems the advertisement's claims "silly" and "false." Granted, an unsupported claim that the world's population can be housed in Texas seems "silly." But as anyone who read the piece would have understood, this was simply rhetorical hyperbole used to refute overpopulation arguments in favor of abortion.
Students for Choice say that they "do not blame The Crimson," but permeating the entire letter are calls for the "review of information" in the advertisement, and for the "notice [of] the journalistic approach." The group treads lightly in an attempt not to utter the ugly name of censorship, which lurks beneath the surface of the letter. Indeed, the closing line, which deems the decision to publish the advertisement "a disgraceful action on the part of The Crimson," contradicts the group's claim to be holding back blame.
If we are seeking truth in this debate where future lives are at stake, both of mother and child, then let all necessary information be exposed. At heart we're all pro-choice, the real controversy lies with what we decide; how we decide it should be the same: without ignorance.
Jorge Alex Alvarez '01
Feb. 23, 1999
Read more in Opinion
So Long, Joltin' JoeRecommended Articles
-
In Ads, Scholar Accuses Nobel Winner of FakeryThe Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC), a conservative Los Angeles-based think tank, has placed advertisements in several
-
To Print Or Not To Print: Ad Kindles OutrageLast Wednesday, on the last day of Black History Month, the UC-Berkeley Daily Californian published an advertisement titled "Ten Reasons
-
Horowitz Denies Need for Slave Reparatioins At MIT DebateDavid Horowitz continued his crusade against slavery reparations for African-Americans in a debate at MIT last night against Dorothy Lewis,
-
Panel Confronts Issues of Free Speech and Responsible JournalismLast night's panel discussion on "Free Speech & Responsible Journalism in the Academic Community" focused on the David Horowitz and
-
Drawing the LineThe spring 2001 semester will undoubtedly be remembered for the Living Wage Campaign's occupation of Massachusetts Hall and the selection
-
Peace Offering From Johnson Spurned by HoWASHINGTON, D.C.; March 21 -- President Johnson Personally wrote to North Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh on Feb. 8 with