Fear of bias will no longer obstruct our coverage of the MSU presidentials
On Jan. 5, the university announced their punishment towards two students who made a booking at Innis Library under the name “McMaster KKK meeting” in early December. While the Silhouette did not publish anything during the original timeframe about the controversy, mostly due to the fact that the final issue of the year had printed and exam season took priority for our student staff, the odd dilemma moving forward is the struggle presented with a topic like this.
The paper and university have dealt with heated events this year, most notably with the presence of alt-rights posters in November. The problem comes with considering how much of a voice each side actually has compared to how many people actually wish to speak about their perspective.
Basically, considerations about a silent majority or a vocal minority during any argument can easily tear apart a newsroom if not done with absolute precision. What should be covered in limited space? How much does the average contributor need a devil’s advocate to reply to their position? What do we do if we cannot find one?
While these considerations can weaken legitimacy due to potential bias, these are the questions and considerations that have also weakened our content. It is difficult to state we have had legitimate coverage if we have chosen not listen to the readers we are serving. This section in particular has failed its students during presidentials.
Moving forward, the paper will attempt to bring you the best articles possible for the MSU presidential elections. Anyone associated with the Silhouette will be taking a leave of absence if they are associated with a campaign team. Our office door will be closed from Jan. 15 to 26 with the exception of staff meetings. A number of other precautions, largely absent or deemed unimportant in the past, have been taken to ensure the paper takes as neutral a stance as possible.
While certainly not as controversial as discussions about race, it is difficult to navigate issues and politics that have far more grey area where moral integrity is not the main point of discussion. Difficulty is not a valid excuse.
Our coverage last year mostly consisted of:
• Opening statements from every candidate
• A colour and design analysis of every candidate
• Looking back at similar promises candidates in the past have made
• Overviews of every candidate
• Reactions to the Presidential Debate
• A critique on one point from every candidate
• What every candidate stated about mental health
• A fun article about a sixth candidate named Esther Chatul, the cat
The Opinion section had exactly two election articles in print during this span. One was pro-VP referendum. The other debated that the referendum did not matter because democracy dies when “argument culture” takes over. The now defunct Lifestyle section had more pages dedicated to politics.
While certainly not as controversial as discussions about race, it is difficult to navigate issues and politics that have far more grey area where moral integrity is not the main point of discussion. Difficulty is not a valid excuse.
We have failed to provide open discussion out of fear. The vast majority of content for the last few years has been from the candidates themselves, our staff and news contributors. You were left to talk about the issues by shouting into the voids of random social media or in the comments section on our articles rather than in print. The want to remain unbiased and the want for open discussion do not have to be opposing ideas.
When the nominations end on Jan. 12 at 5 p.m., I want to see your thoughts and perspectives on every candidate. I want you to absolutely grill the idiotic parts of each campaign and praise parts that you feel would be best to move the school forward into greatness. You, your peers and the school as a whole should have a more active part in bringing points to the forefront.
