THE OPINION section of any newspaper, collegiate or professional, is unique within the rest of the paper because of its subjectivity. However, there is a difference between the bias and partiality of a writer and the objectivity of an editor on the opinion page. At The Cornell Daily Sun, the latter has come under fire by a conservative who claims that his views are being censored by the liberal editors of the opinion section.
Joseph J. Sabia, a Ph.D. candidate in economics at Cornell, submitted a letter to the editor to the Daily Sun decrying the university's memorial celebration of September 11 -- specifially, that it was too liberal. When it was rejected by the Sun, he claimed that he was being censored. It was reprinted on frontpagemag.com, a conservative Web site, with the caveat "Warning: this article has been banned by the Cornell Daily Sun." However, the charges of "censorship" against the Sun are ridiculous, and ultimately blur the perception of editorial objectivity.
According to Sabia, he submitted a shortened version of the letter (which was 760 words in the form that was published online). After he inquired about the status of the letter, he eventually received an e-mail back from Sun Associate Editor Jen Roberts that stated, "The Sun reserves the right to use discretion regarding the material it prints, and we've decided not to print your letter."
In a telephone interview, Sabia claimed that it was "clear that they rejected my column because of the conservative viewpoint -- anyone with eyes and common sense can see that." With all due respect to Sabia, it isn't that clear.
This e-mail isn't necessarily an indictment of the newspaper. Certainly, the e-mail could have been clearer as to the reasons why the letter wasn't published, but according to the Sun Editor-in-Chief Beth E. Herskovits, "There are a number of reasons a letter might not run. We may choose to not run a letter if it doesn't have a coherent argument, if there's a possibility of slander or libel, if there's an agenda behind it, or simply for space reasons. But the opinion behind it is not one of them."
Sabia also asserts that the response he received from Roberts wasn't as detailed as some of the previous responses he's received about letters -- for instance, specifying concerns about space and clarity. Because of this, he infers that in this case, it was his opinion that was the reason for them rejecting his letter.
But this is still no reason to believe that the intent behind this was malicious, as opposed to simple obscurity and confusion. Sabia did not follow up with the editors to clear up the e-mail. In fact, in the past, the Sun has published many different letters to the editor by Sabia -- from accusing the newspaper itself of "anti-religious bigotry" to being "too-left leaning to be a balanced newspaper." In a 2000 news story about the 25 most influential students at Cornell, Sabia was included as one of them. It certainly doesn't appear that the Sun has been out to censor him.
However, Sabia does bring up a very legitimate question -- does the political affiliation of the members of the Sun's Editorial Board interfere with their editorial decision? Most opinion page editors have political views of their own. However, an editor suppressing a particular point of view is unprofessional and contrary to an important goal of any opinion page: to stimulate dialogue and discussion.
There are times when, if input on one issue is lopsided, editors must encourage alternative viewpoints in order to encourage the exchange of ideas. But this is a far cry from officially endorsing these viewpoints themselves, and certainly doesn't even compare to suppressing opinions because an editor personally disagrees with them.
While an opinion page may seem overwhelmingly conservative or liberal, there is an important objectivity that needs to be preserved. Roberts arguably should have been clearer in her e-mail to Sabia. But the charges of "censorship" are overblown, and don't reflect reality at all.
What these charges do, however, is blur the line for the public about the policies of opinion pages. According to Herskovits, the Sun "has gotten a lot of negative feedback from all over the country. Most of them are angry letters that throw out words like 'censorship.'" Despite what these people might think after reading Sabia's criticism, objectivity does have a place on the opinion page.
(Brian Cook is a Cavalier Daily opinion editor. He can be reached at bcook@
cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 3 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | November 9, 2024The University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
