A few weeks ago (before McBama) student leaders started laying the groundwork for large-scale undergraduate surveys on issues like swipe access and revisiting the University’s naval ROTC policy. As far as we can tell, University Senators first brought up the NROTC issue, then the councils stepped in to help organize a process, at which point the governing boards became involved. As we noted in an editorial (which Bwog seemed to imply was premature…though we’d run about three news articles on the issue already), the procedure hit a snag when student groups were invited into the organizational meetings—and others were not. The process of preparing the survey seemed like the job of councils and governing boards—less so for groups, since the governing boards in theory act as the groups’ advocates. But when umbrella groups (or “umbrella,” since the term is disputed for certain of these clubs) joined, the door was ajar and it only seemed reasonable that any student be allowed to take part in the planning.

What is particularly bizarre about the course of events is that, so far, most of the debate has not been about ROTC, or NROTC, but about the who’s who in survey planning. This was natural, to a certain extent, given the organizers’ goal of focusing on process for now and delaying that dialogue until specific dates preceding the survey. But then! Enter President Bollinger.

Students often complain of not hearing soon enough from the administration on important events or issues, but this time he’s gone ahead and laid out some facts—and a tone that seemed to suggest the University’s opposition, ultimately, to the policy. Bollinger’s letter (reproduced below the jump in full) mentions the recent ServiceNation Forum—both presidential candidates said they supported ROTC on campus—then goes on to address directly the issue of ROTC…

In a way, he’s ahead of the game on this one.

President Bollinger’s e-mail in full after the jump:

Read the rest of this entry »

When McBama! Zomg McBama! hit campus last week, we here at Spec were still just getting back into the swing of putting out a daily paper. We were still experimenting with a new layout, which was adopted for our new paper size—though you’d be hard-pressed to see any difference (in my opinion), we cut the width of the newspaper down about an inch, and with that slimmer space we experimented with new fonts to came up with a cleaner page design. Meanwhile, other news was taking place, a new Spec blog was in the works, and then ServiceNation chose Columbia to host the launch its two-day program. We put a lot of energy into running a special McBama supplement (with a fine cover illustration by photo editor Linda Carrion—sadly, the print job on that cover did not do justice to Linda’s superior quality work) and now that the campus has settled down again (unless the ROTC snowballs into another cluttered national media circus) I’m wondering where the weekend has gone.

In the meantime, I wanted to make some kind of mark on this blog today so that the teaser headlines under the blog’s name are not ALL McBama-related. While I’m at it, here’s a Spec primer on how to get involved at Spec or how to get your story or side of an issue into the paper. Contribute to public dialogue! Point out our stupid typos! Call us…just to say hi…we get lonely.

Spectator’s news section is run by two news editors who oversee all content. There are five deputy editors under them who work with reporters (“beat chiefs”) to develop and assign stories. While we hear about stories in a variety of ways, the two most common are through email or through direct contact between the beat chief and the sources within the beat. Pitches are gathered on a weekly basis and discussed with the deputy editor, who hones them into story ideas and assigns them. While much of this occurs on a daily basis, the process has been somewhat streamlined into a weekly process, thus Spec benefits from hearing about stories further in advance.

In the last few years, our staff has grown to allow us to cover more stories. However, we simply don’t have the resources or manpower to cover everything. In general, we print stories about people, events, and issues that are new and/or affect the larger community. But we consider every story. We suggest, when emailing about a story or event, including the date, time, location, and a short sentence or two about why you think Spec should cover it. Additional information like, say, a press release or pdf image of a flier, are very useful but the basic details are most essential.

For a heck of a lot more information on all the sections and policies of the paper, again: visit our About page.

My initial reaction to the news was that, nearly a year after a tormented visit from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bollinger had now scored an immense coup. Story angles seemingly written by angels streamed in front of my eyes: Obama returns to CU. Obama debates McCain…at CU. CU trumps–diplomatically if nothing else–a visit by Ahmadinejad with the next U.S. President. Bollinger steps up to the podium and delivers a wise, scholarly introduction to a substantial debate.

It quickly became clear that not all the story angles we might have wanted were actually going to materialize. We soon realized Columbia played a less prominent role than this, and that the two candidates would not share the stage. Other than ideologically, the University probably can’t lose–so it’ll keep security tight and aim to retain limited liability as to the actual content of the event.

With that also comes limited chances  for the campus media outlets (from Spec to CTV to this J-School blog) to get credentials. Kind of sad, since the campaigns have generally been decent to local media, and since Columbia already has limited seating for students. Understandable, but it will still feel strange with very little campus media in the room.

Of course, I won’t be in the room anyway (neither will George Krebs! some students pointed out, somewhat shocked) so I’ll enjoy the fun outside. Here’s hoping for good weather and a good seat with some friends on South Lawn. What goes down in Roone–and outside, with the student-organized activities–will probably not make us all better people forever or help us choose the next president. But it should be a party.

So you want to get your picture taken with Barack Obama? Head down to the Activities Fair on College Walk. Open until 4pm, the fair’s your chance to join a million e-mail lists, maybe find some cool freebies, and meet new people and student clubs. You also can check out the Fed’s infamous illustration of the CU-student relationship. (go to their table, you’ll see)

Stop by the Spectator table (right off the Sundial) and/or come by the office (112th and Broadway, dial #11 to get in) at either 2 p.m. or 5 p.m. today or tomorrow. We’ll show you around and get you more info on how to get involved.

Finally got through (clear your cache, that may help).

“If your name is chosen at random, you will be notified via email on Monday, September 8, 2008; this confirmation email will contain instructions for claiming your ticket, as well as admission requirements for the event.”

Apparently, if my name isn’t chosen “at random,” I won’t be notified via email.

“For more information, please call 212-854-7328.”

As something like 10,000 people swarm to the lottery registration web site, many are complaining that they can’t get through. Faced with a similar predicament, I called CUIT. They said the server was being bogged down, but that the link itself is working. At this point, one of my friends has signed up for the lottery. The rest are hoping that hangovers or forgetfulness will deter enough people to give them a fighting chance.

The one who did get through to the registration said it took about 10 patient minutes to get through. Keep hitting those Refresh buttons!

Sure, the chances are slim anyway–but we all want a fair shot. It seems no extra precautions were taken to ensure the server would not lag today.

In the meantime, we’re getting back in the daily rhythm of a daily paper–come say hi at the Activities Fair!

Despite only a few winks of sleep and an iced coffee this morning, I’m still jumpy from the news that presidential candidates and Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) will be coming to campus on Thursday. Columbia, yet again, will have the eyes of the nation upon it. But how did Spectator find out they were coming to begin with?

It all started when deputy campus news editor Joy Resmovits heard through a few students that their groups had reserved space revoked at Lerner for next Thursday. A representative from the University said he wasn’t aware of anything going on. Joy, along with an office full of over-caffeinated Speccies, tried to think of what the reason could be on Tuesday night. A speech from New York Senator Hillary Clinton? An announcement about financial aid? Or my favorite guess, the bat mitzvah of an administrator’s kid?

After President Bollinger’s Freedom of Speech and Press class, Joy chased him down and asked what kind of event would be happening at Lerner. Sure enough, he said McCain and Obama were coming to campus but that he wanted us to run it by Public Affairs. Jacob Schneider (campus news editor), Joy, and myself hurried up the steps of Low Library seeking to convene with Public Affairs before going ahead with the story. Time was of the essence. We didn’t want the student e-mail to be sent out before we had a web update posted. Or worse yet, to have a national publication get a hold of a campus story before we did.

When we didn’t have any luck at Low, we headed to the office to start planning the coverage. Joy began typing up the web update and we continued to try to reach Public Affairs. Finally contact was made and we agreed to wait for them to get information from ServiceNation (the event’s sponsor). After nearly an hour of chomping at the bit, we put the article on our website.

If you haven’t had a chance, read our supplement on the Spring of 1968—and also check out the Online supplement. Then, take a break from all the other events planned for the anniversary and come to the Spectator office to hear former Spec reporters reminisce on their time covering the protests.

******
Mark your calendars! On April 25th, we are holding an informal gathering in the Spec office in light of the commemoration the 40 year anniversary of 1968. Come to the Spec office to hear 1968 alumni speak about their experiences, to mingle, and to enjoy free food! To recap:

WHO: YOU and alumni reporters who covered the 1968 protests (bring your friends, too!)

WHAT: 1968 commemoration, featuring Spec alumni speakers (including Jerry Avorn, Rob Stulberg, and Michael Stern)

WHEN: April 25th, 2008, 6-8pm

WHERE: Spec office, 2875 Broadway (SW corner of 112th Street), dial #11 to come in.

Ah, presidential debates. What a great social indicator for the political culture of our time. While I don’t want to take sides here, nor really do I care to get down and dirty (for it is dirty) and wade through the varied and banal ads, spin, blathering, condescending posturing, rhetoric, counter-rhetoric, meta-rhetoric, and who knows what else kind of rhetoric, I can take a politically neutral stance and point out that this Frank Rich op-ed piece has some interesting comments about the recent debate on ABC.

Most students of Columbia probably don’t need this blog to learn about Frank Rich, he’s popular and reliable. The reason I link to it here is because it’d be easy to pretend that the media doesn’t play favorites, and that the media doesn’t get submerged in the harmful political discourse it pretentiously and complacently believes to hold accountable. When the L.A. Times somehow intimates that Edward Said, a scholar of near-Olympian proportion especially at Columbia, is, to put it mildly, shady—and Obama’s in the story, so ohhh!—I don’t have a politically oriented reaction so much as just feel embarrassed for the journalism industry I wish to enter post-grad. (for stronger language re: the hackery, see our friends at Commentariat)

As Rich writes, you can remain politically neutral and still agree with the “viewers of all political persuasions [who] were affronted by the moderators’ failure to ask about the mortgage crisis, health care, the environment, torture, education, China policy, the pending G.I. bill to aid veterans, or the war we’re losing in Afghanistan. Those minutes were devoted not just to recycling the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bosnian sniper fire and another lame question about a possible “dream ticket” but to the unseemly number of intrusive commercials and network promos that prompted the jeering at the end.”

This is nothing new, or original (perhaps some will find it interesting that the editor of an Ivy newspaper can be something other than naively idealistic about journalism…naive and idealistic, maybe?) but the least I can do is post that I’m “mad” and wish I could “not take it anymore.”

“But that remains on hold while we resolve whether Mr. Obama lost Wednesday’s debate with his defensive stumbling, or whether Mrs. Clinton lost it with her ceaseless parroting of right-wing attacks. The unequivocally good news is that ABC’s debacle had the largest audience of any debate in this campaign. That’s a lot of viewers who are now mad as hell and won’t take it anymore.”

Hell, I hope he’s right.

Last week was a busy one! Spec’s editorial board endorsed candidates for Columbia College Student Council and General Studies Student Council. We’ve tried to outline beforehow the editorial board—to be distinguished from the managing board (the newspaper’s editors)—arrive at the final argument each issue. But readers may like to know that for student government elections, we have a bit of a special process. When writing an editorial, we usually have one boardmember make phone calls, do some reporting and fact-checking, etc. For the elections, though, we interview all the candidates, grill them on policy views, and then try to reach a consensus. Sometimes, that consensus is easily achieved. Other times, it takes more research, discussion amongst the board, and sometimes a formal vote. The eventual editorial then tries to accurately represent the board’s full view—not only in the choice of the candidate, but in acknowledging the pros and cons regarding each, as well as commenting on the issues themselves regardless of whom we endorse.

Endorsing can be difficult. If two candidates seem similar, should we really choose between one or the other, and how so? As we noted in this editorial, we sometimes feel a lack of faith in the council elections. Ultimately, we opt to endorse because, especially if two candidates are similar, an editorial can help us and potential readers distinguish the subtler differences between them. With that as a mission, in the end…endorsing can just be difficult.

An unrelated note: Commenting has returned! However, we had some slip-ups. The new commenting policy will use a security question system to help keep out spam (the original reason we took commenting down). But the new system in our first week turned out to be a bit too sensitive, so some comments that initially were accepted somehow were lost. Since a few of these were about a contentious opinion submission on Tibet, a few readers wrote in asking why their (critical) comments had been removed. We apologize but it was unintentional. The piece, incidentally, was written based on faulty information, and we formally retracted it, removing it from the Web site and issuing a note of explanation.

Comments should, now, remain published once they pass our anti-spam system. So comment away, and thanks for bearing with us.