Gaither

Student Media OF

NORTH

CAROLINA

S TAT E

UNIVERSITY

“What I am trying to say is, drunk driving is just like anything else: there are smart and stupid ways of doing it.”

Jeff Gaither Staff Columnist

SoUrCE: Wral tElEViSioN rEPort

There are smart & stupid columns. Which is this?

you decide

A cASE StudY oF onE coLuMn WrIttEn For tHE StudEnt nEWSPAPEr At nortH cAroLInA StAtE unIVErSItY

Introduction

The Technician has a daily print circulation of 11,500 with an average of 3,400 hits per day on its Web site. As of the end of January 2006, the “Sometimes It Can Be Necessary” had received more than 13,000 hits. The staff editorial received slightly more than 500 hits.

And Gaither’s apology had received 379 hits.

The Technician is, as the nameplate says, “The Student Newspaper of North Carolina State University.” By practice, it is a public forum for student opinion and the editor has the final say regarding the content of the publication.

North Carolina State University is a land-grant institution with 30,149 students as of the fall of 2005, making it the largest university in North Carolina. Electrical engineering, business management, and computer science are the most popular majors on campus, but Communication is also popular. However, there is no degree in journalism, only a minor.

The student newspaper staff members are all paid. The staff members described themselves as liberal. And when asked who they voted for in the last election, it was split 2:1 for Kerry (D) over Bush (R).

However, when asked what party affiliation they had, it was equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. The largely male staff is dominated by seniors with low percentage of freshmen. About 80 percent of the staff is Caucasian.

The material contained in this case study is meant to serve as an educational tool for student journalists at North Carolina State University and other institutions. No names have been changed. Dates and specific events are detailed as they occurred. Because a student newspaper is a “work in progress,” it’s also a story without end.

The events detailed here occurred in January and February of 2006 and will, inevitably, continue well into the spring semester.

After all the supporting material, several exercises, built upon the specific material, will serve as educational tools for budding journalists. While the student staff members in this case all admit they made some mistakes, they did learn from them. We all hope others can as well.

Bradley Wilson Coordinator of Student Media Advising North Carolina State University February 2006

Page

PAGE 6 • TUESDAY, January 10, 2006

Viewpoint

Technician

Sometimes it can be necessary It’s never a good idea to drive drunk, but sometimes there’s just no way around it. Sometimes you’re drunk, and you need to go somewhere. I have done it many times myself.

In fact, I have done Jeff so much drunk driving that I consider myGaither Staff Columnist self an expert. And so I now give you, ladies and gentlemen, the benefit of all (or some of) my illegal experience, in a handy guide on how not to get screwed over by drunk driving.

The first guideline is simple: Don’t drive drunk if you can possibly help it. Get some other unlucky sod to be the D.D. But don’t designate yourself. Then go and get smashed.

If you’re drinking at home, get more beer than you think you could ever drink. That way, when you’re reaching the bottom of the first case, you won’t feel it necessary to drive to the store drunk and high and buy another twelve-pack. If you get hungry, order some pizza.

But sometimes you get drunk before the party, and nobody can drive there but you; or you’re leaving the party and definitely drunk, but feel capable of driving. At any rate, sometimes you’ve just got to drive drunk.

Second guideline: Be extra careful when you drive. Careful as hell. I have a friend

named Wally who was caught for a DWI because he was swerving and someone called the police, who met him leaving the Kangaroo (having there bought more beer) and immediately pulled him over. Wally will be our example of what NOT to do if you are pulled over.

So the cop comes up to Wally’s window and it goes down. The cop says, “You had anything to drink tonight?”

“Yes, sir, and I’m going to cooperate fully,” says Wally, who is a good, honest, drunk fellow. Then the police officer asks Wally some questions, and Wally answers them truthfully.

This is his fatal mistake. Some of these questions, such as “How many drinks have you had tonight?” “Do you believe you are intoxicated?” “Have you smoked any marijuana this evening?” are of a damning nature, it is a bad idea on Wally’s part to answer them at all, let alone truthfully.

The thing to do, if you are pulled over and you’ve been drinking, is to give the policeman your name and all your paper credentials, and give him nothing else. If he asks you a question, just say “Do I have to answer that?” He may compel you to take a field sobriety test; it is best to comply with this, and with all his outright commands. But never tell him anything unless you have to.

While he is talking to you, you should somehow or other mention that you just ate a large meal and are very full. This might get you off, even if you are over the legal limit.

Nevertheless, if he wishes to take you

downtown, he will. Don’t worry about this.

Just do your best to sober up, and if there is water or food available along the way, consume it.

You’ll sit around jail for a while, and then you’ll come to the Breathalyzer. And here you play your trump card. Right before you’re about to blow, say, “I want a witness!”

If some jailhouse employee steps up, shout, “I want an impartial witness!” Then call your witness, and tell them to be there in about a half hour. The police have to wait half an hour for the witness; that’s the beautiful thing. So you’ve got a good 30 minutes to sober up. Often this will be enough. If you can gain access to a water fountain, drink about a gallon.

If you still fail the Breathalyzer, well, it’s really gonna suck. Wally took what is perhaps the best course: he didn’t waste money on a lawyer, just went in, pleaded guilty and received the minimum sentence. But then, Wally was an idiot, since he answered every question the policeman asked him, and so obliterated his own defense.

All told, the whole deal cost him about $1,000 and much time and worry. It’s far better to not get caught. What I am trying to say is, drunk driving is just like anything else: there are smart and stupid ways of doing it.

Smarts and stupids alike can e-mail Jeff at viewpoint@technicianonline.com.

Page

PAGE 5 • WEDNESDAY, January 12, 2006

Viewpoint

Technician

TECHNICIAN'S VIEW

Drunken driving is more than a concept Our Opinion: We students are often told why we shouldn't drive drunk, and while some still do it, they don't know why they shouldn't.

It’s interesting to note that most of us — us being students — have been raised to understand that drunken driving is wrong. We’re taught it from the very moment we become remotely interested in driving and through the development of our driving abilities, we have to eventually memorize the laws of driving under influences in order to get our license.

Yet not many of us know why. We understand why — driving drunk puts people in danger because of this vague concept called “beer goggles,” and we hear statistics revealing response times under certain levels of alcohol.

But we don’t know why.

We're able to give the right answers when it comes to drunken driving, and some of us get pretty good at being able to cover it up, lie about it or even get away with it and still say that it's wrong. But they don't know how serious it is very simply because nothing seri-

Page

ous has ever happened to them.

Martha Andersen has. So has Jacqueline Saburido. But more than likely you have no idea who either of these two people are, therefore neither of their stories may not get as personal to you. It may impact you, but you won’t take it personally.

So let’s put things in perspective.

Think about the person in your life most important to you. Don’t just think about their name, think about your relationship to them and all of the things you associate with them — funny things you’ve shared, serious moments you’ve shared, lessons you’ve learned — all because of them. This person, in a way, shaped you.

Now, think about your life without them.

And even more than that, think about that person living without you.

It sucks. It hurts. It’s painful. It’s tragic. And it’s not about moth-

ers whining, students looking for a purpose or some obscure company sponsoring a “Don’t Drink and Drive” ad on TV. It’s about flesh and blood. Family and friends. Life with people and life without them.

And it’s a shame that such things are jeopardized because 2.1 million college students in the country feel they can drive drunk.

Well, they don't know any better because more than likely they were raised by monkeys in the middle of the Sahara.

In 2003, 40 percent of all traffic fatalities involved alcohol. Forty percent! If that number doesn’t strike your very core, then you deserve to lick envelopes the rest of your life.

Driving under any kind of influence isn’t a concept, advertisement, lesson or statistical memorization.

It’s a choice between life and death.

TUESDAY, January 17, 2006 • PAGE 5

Viewpoint

Technician

I apologize Ordinarily a column runs in this space, but I have something important to say, and the editors have graciously permitted me to say it.

Last week I wrote a flippant, arrogant, ofJeff fensive column. This Gaither was, of course, nothing Staff Columnist unusual. However, last week’s column was different, in that it urged students to do something which could easily have cost them their lives: to drive drunk.

In this column, titled “Sometimes it’s necessary,” I stated that I had often driven drunk. I added that drunken driving is sometimes unavoidable, even advisable; and went on to provide tips on how to drive drunk without getting caught.

I would pay five hundred dollars not to have written this column, because the truth of the matter is, drunken driving is dangerous, foolish and down right evil.

When you drive drunk, you’re risking the lives of other people. It doesn’t matter how

drunk you are; if you are even a little bit drunk, you have no business getting behind the wheel.

A car is a deadly weapon, and if not handled with extreme care it can maim, paralyze or kill.

Driving drunk is not much different than getting drunk and then trying to shoot an apple off someone’s head. Even if you’re a crack shot, you’re still drunk, and have no business doing anything so dangerous unless you are stone sober and in the fullest control of your faculties.

I am incredibly sorry that I wrote this column. I joke about a lot of things, but I now realize that drunken driving is not a subject to joke about. So please, I beg you, my fellow students, don’t drive drunk. It ruins people’s lives, yours and others, and if you think a DWI, or a fatal accident, can’t happen to you, you’re wrong.

My best friend in high school’s family was ruined by drunken driving. One day a drunken driver hit his father and broke his back. The father was rendered as invalid for the next ten years; he was unable to work, his

family became poor and his children lost all respect for him. Eventually he took his own life. And all this pain, all this suffering was due to the sorry excuse for a human being who couldn’t be bothered to spend fifteen dollars on a cab ride.

So I beg you, I beg you, fellow students, don’t drive drunk. If you get one thing from all the columns I have written, get that. Don’t drive drunk. You are risking your life, and, what is worse, the lives of innocent people, for the sake of a cab fare. It’s hard to imagine a stupider risk.

I stated in the column that I have driven drunk many times. This was true. However, I have quit drinking, as my New Year’s resolution, because alcohol causes periodic catastrophes in my life; and though you need not go that far, I ask you, fellow student, to let your New Year’s resolution for 2006 be, “I will not drive drunk.” If you drink and drive in 2006, some innocent person might not see 2007, and you might not, either.

E-mail Jeff at viewpoint@technicianonline.com.

Page

Various dates • January 2006

Viewpoint

Technician

Letters to the editor January 19, 2006 My name is Jessie Sova and I am an assistant dean in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. I have just finished reading your column, “Sometimes It’s Necessary,” and subsequent apology, “I apologize.” My initial reaction to your first column was tearful. Our son, Brandon Lee Sova, was a sophomore here at N.C. State majoring in Computer Science.

He was killed by two drunk drivers on Aug. 21, 2004, the first weekend of that fall semester.

Technician wrote an article about the collision, but at the time could only conclude that reckless driving was the cause of the collision. It was not. Two men decided to drink and then drive and their choice to do so resulted in our son’s death. Brandon was the only fatality of the collision. Two juniors, Bruce Chipa and Troy Bradshaw were injured.

Since that terrible day, our souls have been shattered, our hearts broken and our lives forever changed. For me, each morning is filled with dread as I drive to work and come upon Hillsborough Street and then as I enter Caldwell Hall, where my office is located. My son attended school here, worked here and lived here. There is not a place on this campus where I can go without being reminded of what we have lost. I see Brandon a hundred times a day in the faces and voices of other students.

He would be a junior this year.

Though grieving, we have chosen to move forward by educating others, particularly young adults and high school-aged children on the impact and dangers of drunk driving.

A family friend, a high school senior herself, developed a DWI Prevention Class and she created a new program called B’s Promise.

B’s Promise is a life-long pledge (not a New Year’s resolution) to never drink and drive and to never get in a vehicle where a driver is drunk. We have also endowed the Brandon Lee Sova Memorial Scholarship for entering fresh-

Page

men here at State. This scholarship honors the memory of our son.

Studies have been conducted on the misuse of alcohol by college students and their influence on campuses and communities. Not only is the individual drinker affected, but so are fellow students, the community, faculty members and the college/university itself. A recently-conducted study by Ralph Hingson (et al, 2002) indicates staggering numbers of how alcohol affects U.S. colleges across the country: • 1,400 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die each year from alcohol misuse.

• 70,000 college students reported cases of sexual abuse because of alcohol use.

• 600,000 reported cases of students being assaulted by someone who had been drinking.

• 500,000 college students with unintentional injuries blamed on alcohol use What I have described is the real impact of drunk driving, which far overshadows whatever time and money is lost by the offender. Your article has done little more than to convey to fellow students that drunk driving is acceptable behavior and should not be considered a crime, a virtual 'how to' list for drunk driving and avoiding arrest and eventual prosecution.

For this bereaved mother, drunk drivers are either attempted murderers or murderers with their weapon of choice being a 3,000-pound vehicle.

I propose an alternative viewpoint to your first story, "Sometimes It's Necessary," entitled, "It Is Never Necessary." I suggest that you write it, outlining alternative approaches to each of your recommendations in your first piece. I would also like you to read B's Promise (attached) and consider if you should take the pledge. If you decide to take the pledge, return it to me and I will send you a bracelet with the letter "B" on it and forgo the $3 donation. The bracelet shows your commitment and support

of drunk driving prevention.

Do not send me a written apology, you have said quite enough. Instead, turn your words into action, take the pledge. Live the pledge.

Adalia A. Sova Assistant Dean for Finance & Administration College of Humanities and Social Sciences January 23, 2006 I truly hope that you are trolling and that your column “Sometimes it’s necessary” was intended as a lighthearted joke. Unfortunately, even if that were the case, you should be ashamed of writing such filth. It is morally irresponsible to even pretend to promote an activity as dangerous and reckless as drunk driving. Contrary to what your column states, it is never necessary to drive drunk. (It is never necessary to be drunk, truly, but such stupidity is not illegal.) There is absolutely no case where one must drive drunk. Taxi cabs are abundant. Can’t afford a taxi cab? Well, you should have thought about that before you got plastered (you know, when you were actually thinking straight).

The Technician should be ashamed for even thinking of printing such a column, and I completely expect a retraction and a commitment from the paper not to print such irresponsible “viewpoints.” It is one thing to print a column saying that sorority girls are “sluts” and make allusions to their sexual promiscuity.

It is entirely another thing to print one that advocates destructive and deadly behavior, especially among a population of readers who are not averse to such behavior. The Technician may have been able to hide behind its flippant printing of the First Amendment before, but it can’t do so this time.

Bryan Burroughs, Senior Computer Science

OK. So I’m supposing you are getting hundreds of emails about this article. I’m sure I’m not the only one that has said that this is another one of Jeff’s “shock and awe” articles.

I really don’t understand why this material is published. What next? “Go ahead and rape that girl, it will get the aggression out of your system so you won’t murder anyone.” This article was dribble. Besides the fact that it (and most of Jeff’s articles) was poorly written, it condones an act that college students are most at risk of committing. People DIE from drunk drivers.

The sad thing is, if Jeff Gaither’s mother were killed by a drunk driver, he would have never written the article. That is how short sighted this whole thing is.

I vote for taking Jeff OFF the Technician staff.

This isn’t journalism. I’ll repeat, THIS ISN’T JOURNALISM! Ian F.G. Dunn, Senior Sociology

well-opinioned sophomore that would love to have his spot.

Edward Stephens Agronomy Club Aglife Rep.

I would just like to express my disappointment in Jeff Gaither’s column, wherein he states “It’s never a good idea to drive drunk, but sometimes there’s just no way around it.” There is ALWAYS a way around it. Call a cab. Call a friend. Wait until you sober up.

You should never put yourself into a situation where you will have to leave before you’re sober, but if you are in such a situation, driving is NOT an option. My 13 year old cousin was killed by a drunk driver years ago, and though I was staunchly opposed to drunk driving before that, I can’t imagine how anyone can do such a thing, much less say “sometimes there’s just no way around it.”

I do want to say, however, that there’s nothing inherently wrong with the paper publishing this column. It’s important that free speech be upheld, no matter how awful and stupid the column is.

George Peterson, Alumnus

I just happened to read your column about drunk driving. I’m sorry to say that is a sad testament to students around the world, and I wish that you had never considered running it. If you want to drive drunk, then that is a risk that you are willing to absorb if the situation turns sour. Telling people that it is even remotely OK to drive drunk is a crime against humanity. How safe would you feel on a road that was filled with drivers that took your uninspired advice? I certainly hope that no one took your column seriously because it is a sad testament to some of the more sinister things in this world. I sincerely hope that you don’t continue to put your life at risk by driving drunk. Hopefully you and your friend Wally will learn from Wally’s mistake and stop making stupid choices like drunk driving. If you ever are caught, or God forbid if you or someone else is killed as a result of your irresponsible actions, then may God have mercy on your soul. You’ve single-handedly tarnished the reputation of college students all around the world, and I pity you for it.

Logan Braman Copy Editor and Designer 2005-2006 Academic Year Ball State Daily News and expo Magazine

Did anyone actually read his article before it went to press? It would appear not. The Technician has a long tradition of printing opinion articles that make people stop and think, and some times argue. This article does nothing close. It is a how-to on drunk driving. It is not thought provoking nor does it share a different point of view. I am ashamed to see it in our paper. It does not project a positive image of our student body. It shows apathy on the part of an irresponsible student who is lucky to have survived this long. Drunk driving is a serious problem that kills people. At this moment I feel that my student fee money Technician received was wasted. Gaither has been lacking for some time now, I am sure there is some

How sad and disappointing to read your article. You must be fortunate enough to never have known anyone affected by a drunk driver.

I know you have subsequently written a follow-up article as an apology, but I have to tell you how afraid I am right now.

If you keep up this behavior — expertly driving drunk — I hope no one in my family, especially my precious 6-month old daughter or loving husband, is anywhere near you while you are out driving drunk.

People like you put the fear of God in me when it comes to the safety and well-being of my child.

Marcella K. Simmons College of Humanities and Social Sciences

anyone would want to restrict that freedom just because the other party doesn’t believe exactly what they believe in. Major censorship keeps people from discussing what is on their mind and sharing their beliefs with others. Just imagine how you would like it if the government told you not to talk about your religion.

It would make you really upset.

Praveen Sriram, Senior ACC Info Systems January 24, 2006 It really grieved my heart to see the continued attacks on Jeff Gaither and the [column] that he wrote. Don’t get me wrong; I’m by no means condoning or justifying his view on driving drunk. I think that drunken driving is terrible problem, especially in the United States. So many innocent lives are lost each year because of the sin of drunkenness. The pain of losing a loved one to this can last a lifetime, not to mention the guilty party’s family that lives with alcoholism. But, with that said, I want to say that I do believe in a person’s freedom of speech.

I also believe that it is the responsibility of every Christian to lift this man up in prayer.

The [forums] in response to Mr. Gaither’s column only show our own depravity and need for a savior. It shows our own hearts’ true motives and lack of forgiveness. In Luke’s gospel, he writes: “Take heed to yourselves — If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.” (Luke 17:3) I think we need more of a spirit of forgiveness, knowing that we too will fall. In the book of I John 1:9, we are told that, “If we confess our sins, he (God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Maybe we should examine our own lives and ask God to help us clean up the junk — asking Him to forgive us so we too can be more forgiving. God Bless.

Chris Hewett, Employee PAMS

When you’re taking that can opener to a can of worms, do you ever think, “Maybe I shouldn’t?” Just wondering.

Jonathan Holloway, Junior English It is the freedom of speech that is what makes our country so great in the first place (especially on college campuses). I don’t see why

Page

Timeline

players

Jan. 6

Jeff Gaither • Jeff is a regular columnist with the student newspaper.

Jan. 9 Jan. 10 Jan. 11

Jan. 11 Jan. 12 Jan. 13 Jan. 14

Jan. 17 Feb. 10 Feb. 26

Column submitted by Jeff Gaither to editorial page editor Jason Eder at 8:47 p.m.

Column first read by editorial page editor Jason Eder; Column runs in Technician Column discussed at Presidents Roundtable; student states he has notified WRAL of his displeasure and will call for reduced funding of Technician Editorial board meets to discuss response to column Editorial runs in Technician WRAL runs story on Fox50 and WRAL: http://www.wral.com/ video/6073848/detail.html WRAL continues to run story on morning news between 6 - 8 a.m.; Technician Web site receives 12,000 hits Columnist Jeff Gaither publishes an apology in the Technician Technician hosts training for editorial writers Monthly training for all staff members; guest: Dan Holly, editor, North Raleigh News

Jason Eder • Jason Eder was the Viewpoint section editor until he resigned Jan. 6, 2006. His resignation became effective Jan. 20, 2006.

Rebecca Heslin • Rebecca is the editor of the student Heslin newspaper. She is ultimately responsible for the content in the paper. She took over as editor on April 1, 2005. The editor is hired by a board of directors that consists only of students. The board would also be responsible for any disciplinary action taken against the editor.

Bill Elsen • Bill is a former writer for The Washington Post. He served as a writing coach for the Technician staff during the first week of January in 2006 and critiqued the paper after it came out each day. He did not read any of the editorial page copy before it went to press.

Bradley Wilson • Bradley is the adviser to the student newspaper. He regularly critiques the publication but does not read copy before it goes to press except to occasionally assist a student who needs another opinion. He has been at N.C. State for three years.

Additional staff members who sit on the editorial board are listed in the masthead below as it appeared on Jan. 10, 2006.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

- The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Presidents Roundtable An informal gathering of leaders of student organizations. This group sets the agenda for the Chancellor’s Liaison meeting.

The unsigned editorial that appears above is the opinion of the members of Technician’s editorial board excluding the news department and is the responsibility of the editor in chief.

The opinions expressed in the columns, cartoons, photo illustrations and letters to the editor that appear on Technician's pages are the views of the individual writers and cartoonists.

Chancellor’s Liaison A monthly meeting between the chancellor, other executive officers and various student leaders.

editor in Chief

Rebecca Heslin

editor@technicianonline.com

News editor

Tyler Dukes

Sports editor

Tanner Kroeger

tyler@technicianonline.com

tanner@technicianonline.com

Deputy News editor

Deputy Sports editor

haley@technicianonline.com

sports@technicianonline.com

Haley Huie

Josh Harrell

Deputy News editor

Deputy Sports editor

news@technicianonline.com

clark@technicianonline.com

Science & Tech editor

(nineonenine) editor

Kasey Butler

Cynthia Marvin

Clark Leonard Jake Seaton

cynthia@technicianonline.com

jake@technicianonline.com

Viewpoint editor

Deputy (nineonenine) editor

viewpoint@technician.ncsu.edu

greg@technicianonline.com

Jason Eder

Greg Behr

Technician (USPS 455-050) is the official student-run newspaper of N.C. State University and is published every Monday through Friday throughout the academic year from August through May except during holidays and examination periods. Opinions expressed in the columns, cartoons, photo illustrations and letters that appear on Technician’s pages are the views of the individual writers and cartoonists. Copyright 2005 by the North Carolina State Student Media. All rights reserved. To receive permission for reproduction, please write the editor in chief. Subscription cost is $100 per year.

Printed by The News & Observer, Raleigh, N.C.

Page 8

Design editor

Win Bassett

win@technicianonline.com

Design editor

Katie Graf

katie@technicianonline.com

Photo editor

Nick Pironio

nick@technicianonline.com

advertising Manager

Robbie Williams ads@technicianonline.com

Classifieds Manager

Meghann Dominie

classifieds@technicianonline.com

Witherspoon Student Center Box 8 08, NCSU Campus Raleigh, NC -8 08 Editorial 1 . 11 Advertising 1 . 0 Fax 1 . 1 Online technicianonline.com

What happened Jeff Gaither

I didn’t think about what the reaction would be too much. I thought if they decided it was going to be too much controversy then they wouldn’t run it.

Jeff Gaither

columnist

When I read it, what it came down to was a lapse in my judgment.

Jason Eder

Viewpoint editor

I’ve tackled a lot of controversial subjects. I like to take a subject that expresses an opinion that a lot of people hold but no one says. I want them to read it and be interested. I did have some thoughts about the controversy of this topic before I wrote it, but I’ve written stuff that the paper has not published before. I wrote a column on Hitler in the spring of last year. It didn’t run.

I didn’t think about what the reaction would be too much. I thought if they decided it was going to be too much controversy then they wouldn’t run it. There’s sort of a washing of my hands when I turn in the column. It’s not my responsibility to decide whether my columns run or not once they’re submitted.

Jeff turned in column Friday. The deadline was Sunday at 1 p.m.

I didn’t get any feedback until Friday, Jan. 13 when I read about it on the WolfWeb. I read in the Technician that there were feedback letters. The only way I realized there was controversy was on the WolfWeb. No communication from staff. I wrote the apology on Sunday, submitting it at 12:49 a.m. I came in on Monday, MLK holiday. The first contact I had with anyone on staff was when Rebecca replied to my submission of the apology at around noon Monday.

I realize now the obligations you have when you write a column. You have to be all right with the opinion you’re expressing. You have to be all right with the possibility of everyone else agreeing with that opinion. If everyone else agreed with my opinion, drunken driving would dramatically increase, and that was the whole problem with the column. If you’re not OK with people agreeing with your opinion, you shouldn’t write it.

I received about seven e-mails: five were critical, two were sympathetic. After I wrote the apology, I received one “good job” e-mail. I did hear from a woman whose daughter was killed by a drunken driver. Drunken driving is a lot worse than I thought.

I needed someone to suggest it was wrong before I did it. In some small measure, I think I might have been relieved if someone had stopped the article before it ran. I don’t like hate mail. I could have written another column that wasn’t so controversial.

I do take responsibility for writing the column.

None of us were in top form. I’m of the opinion that we need to minimize the damage done by this column and then we need to prevent something like this from ever happening again.

Regarding the apology, especially given that no one from the staff contacted me prior to me

submitting the apology, no one prevailed on or even suggested that I write the apology. I did it of my own initiative.

If I HAD been informed that WRAL was doing a story on the column, I would have given an interview, issued an apology, and urged WRAL watchers please not to drive drunk. This would’ve worked greatly to minimize the negative reaction, I feel, and also done a lot to ease my conscience.

That’s water under the bridge, but it’s worth saying, I think, since I never had the option. I received no contact from WRAL in any way.

Jason Eder

Because of e-mail problems, column went straight to my personal e-mail account. I didn’t read it until Monday night. I had had it for three days.

When I read it, what it came down to was a lapse in my judgment. He usually takes another end of controversial thinking. I thought: “This is Jeff Gaither speaking out about something that’s pretty accepted.” I didn’t read it as a “how to.”

I sent it to copy editors and put it on the page.

I had Becca read my page. I didn’t give or get feedback on topic or content until after the fact. I wan’t paying 100 percent attention to what he was saying.

This was a wake-up call.

Rebecca Heslin

Jeff was pretty much out in the cold during this entire process. I assumed Jason would pass feedback along to Jeff. That didn’t happen.

What should have happened Jeff Gaither

I should have thought this is a viewpoint the Technician should not be expressing from a moral standpoint.

Up the pecking order, someone should have stopped it. Jason to copy editor to editor. I understand it’s difficult for editor to see every piece. Each time it went up, it should not have been approved.

Jason Eder

I should have said I’m not running this.

I used to inform people at editorial board meeting about what was going to be on my page.

Few people seemed to care, so I just quit talking about it. I need to keep people informed.

Page

What will happen Jeff Gaither

We need to seriously think about what we’re writing and the impact it will have. Don’t be a dumb ass. Don’t just count on the editors to nix it.

The Technician should have the contact information of every staff member on the Web page. If my info had been up there, WRAL could’ve contacted me and I could’ve made an apology on TV instead of in Technician where no one would read it.

N.C. State alcohol stats • 45 percent of students had five drinks or more within two weeks of the survey • 36 percent reported involvement in public misconduct (trouble with the police, fighting/ argument, DWI, vandalism) due to the consequences of alcohol and drug use • 26 percent drove a car while under the influence • 29 percent got into an argument or fight • 25 percent performed poorly on a test or important project • 37 percent did something they later regretted • 35 percent missed a class • 31 percent had a blackout • 54 percent got nauseated or vomited • 61 percent experienced a hangover SOURCE: 2004 N.C. State CORE Survey

Action plan 1. Have extra columns on file. Jason will get writers to write five extra columns due on or before Jan. 23. At least five columns will be held in reserve for times when a column does not meet quality or content standards.

• •

As of Jan. 24, according to Rebecca, “He did not have five stockpiled columns ready, but I am now on that and more are coming in.”

As of Feb. 6, Rebecca had five or so columns “extra” in case one fell through.

2. Have columns in at least two days early. While this has been the deadline, it has not been followed consistently.

•

As of Jan. 24, according to Rebecca, “He did have Wednesday’s columns in and ready to go on the page.

Copy editors have already taken a look at them. I’ve contact all the columnists and cartoonists to let them know what’s going on. I’ve begged them for columns and that by staying on schedule, they will be really helping me out.”

3. The editorial page editor will review all columns with the writer for content, quality of writing as well as grammar, spelling, punctuation and style. As part of the normal writing process, this feedback will occur in person except in extraordinary cases. The editorial page editor will maintain regular office hours posted for all staff members to take advantage of.

4. Include in the job description of the copy editor that copy editors should not be afraid to check content, question things and should not be afraid to pass things back to the section editor or to contact the reporter directly.

5. The editorial page editor will discuss the content of all columns on the editorial page at least two days in advance with the editorial board. The editorial board will give feedback on the content of columns just as editorial board

Page 10

members give feedback on all content in the paper.

Feedback from staff members on Feb. 1:

• I’ve had problems with columnists getting columns in at all, let alone two days in advance. It’s improving.

• Doesn’t happen. Columns need to come in earlier.

• We don’t talk two days in advance, but we do touch on the columns each meeting. The editorial page will continue to improve with time.

• Although it’s a good idea, it has not completely been implemented. When a column’s content is called into question, it is then brought up at the board meeting.

• This sounds good.

• This is good because we know what is running and we can discuss the controversial topic.

• I’m not sure it’s necessary to discuss all columns, but discussing questionable content of certain columns is a good idea. I suppose that would be the editorial page editor’s call.

• Not happening. I am willing to take on more responsibilities with the viewpoint section.

6. The editorial page editor will invite columnists to the editorial board meeting at which their columns will be discussed so they can attend and participate in the discussion not only on the content of their columns but the content of the entire paper.

Feedback from staff members on Feb. 1:

• Not happening. We need to have a meeting with these kids ASAP. • If we’re going to review all columns, this gesture is only fair.

• This is good but can be awkward for the columnist.

The board does get a better idea of where the columnist is coming from.

• OK • We have yet to invite columnists but the door is oepn.

With the changing of the Viewpoint editor,it is has been difficult building the page.

• I don’t think columnists have been invited, so my suggestion would be to invite them.

• Doesn’t happen. Columnists are lazy.

• Columnists have been invited on individual basis but none have come in.

7. The staff will be further trained on the “ideal” writing process including brainstorming the initial story idea with the page editors, research, interviews, writing, rewriting, editing and evaluation. This training will be mandatory for all staff members and will be completed before Feb. 28.

•

Training to take place on Feb. 26 from 1-4 p.m.

8. The staff will produce a “Day in the Life” of the newspaper to educate the staff and the community at large about how the paper is produced and how, as a public forum for student opinion, anyone can submit works for publication in print and online. This will be available at the February Chancellor’s Liaison meeting for distribution.

Staff feedback

9. The staff will produce a “How to Read the Technician” to educate the community at large about the different types of content in the paper including objective news stories, objective feature stories, staff editorials, individual columns, guest columns and letters to the editor. This will be available at the February Chancellor’s Liaison meeting for distribution.

10. The staff and adviser will create a training course for all incoming staff members to include four 90-minute classes once a week each September and February. This class must be completed before staff members can become senior staff members. It will include training in journalistic ethics, community standards, the writing process and other relevant topics.

11. As part of the publication of the staff manual, the staff will publish guidelines for the publication of letters to the editor, guest columns and other editorial material. The staff manual will be completed with such guidelines

by Aug. 1.

Cynthia Marvin

I personally was not at the board meeting the night before it ran. My initial reaction after reading it was that it definitley should not have run. From what I hear though, there were doubts from staff members about whether this should run or not.

If there is any controversial conversation about the issue then everyone should have to read it and decide.

Story ideas • Alcohol abuse kills, changes lives • Alcohol abuse • Stories of police who have pulled over drunk drivers • Familes affected by drunk drivers • Which alcoholic drinks get you run the quickest and their other effects • Drinking and driving after football games • What players do on road trips, and how they’re restricted • Perception vs. reality about alcohol abuse • How peer pressure affects you • How alcohol consumption has changed since the drinking age was increased (alumni and students) • Drinking games • Germs of beer pong • Chronicle of a 21st birthday • Economic impact of tailgaiting • Life-changing alcohol events • From a police officer’s perspective • How many students do NOT drink and drive? Why? • How to make a kegerator? (science and tech) • Why not to drink and drive (dangers) • How to stay out of trouble on spring break • Binge drinking on spring break • Other things students can do on spring break • Beer pong tables • 21st birthday • Drinking games • Germs • Vaughn Towers • Taxi cab confessions SOURCE: Editorial Board Meeting Feb. 1, 2006

Jake Seaton

I was one who was and am guilty of not reading Viewpoint content before it is sent. I can say I learned a similar lesson regarding reading content before print when the sorostitute incident occurred last semester; yet nothing changed. Now I definitely see the importance of discussing the editorial content at edit meetings rather than just naming which columnists are printing. I hope others see this need as well but through discussions at last week’s meetings, I fear some people may have too liberal a mindset to realize not all content is suitable for the Viewpoint page.

Greg Behr

I think a lot of the time people believe that a good column is controversial in nature and that we depend on this controversy more than we depend on facts and research. I believe this column can be seen as a step towards having more in depth columns that will require the writers to use better judgment with their topics and hopefully do some research.

This column, although ethically irresponsible, also represents a larger problem we have with Viewpoint content. Gaither’s “advice” was factually incorrect as we learned from some of our own experiences and forum letters we received. Perhaps if some of the things he mentioned were actually checked by the section editor, like many columns, it may not have made it to print.

We have the opportunity to change the standards of the Viewpoint page (and the paper as a whole).

As I mentioned in the meeting I am consistently disappointed with viewpoint content. Writers are given carte blanche to write whatever they would like because it is “their opinion.” Gaither’s column was not an opinion column at all. It read like an advice column. So many writers write these generalized opinions from very little information and no work except spewing their thoughts onto the computer and then when we find out they are wrong from forum letters we embrace the controversy. I am an avid reader of opinion columns Page 11

Story ideas From a student perspective, I think that the Vaughan Towers story could be of real interest. I’ve heard stories from people who work those games, and they report some not too favorable behavior from some of the people who are drinking. I’m not even sure of what are the policies are concerning alcohol up there and have heard conflicting policies, thus I can’t tell if policy seems to be enforced or not. I don’t know of many students who have access to that area.

Another feature idea may be about the 90/96 program.

This is a first offenders program that we house at the university that allows students who have simple alcohol and other drug violations expunged from their records upon completion of the program. I get a number of calls from students wanting to know about the program.

The chronicle of a 21st birthday sounds good as well as a piece on Hike. Last semester, there was a group of students who gave out about 800 bottles of water during the Hillsborough Hike, promoting the message of preventing alcohol poisoning, I’d be glad to put someone in touch with a person who helped head this up. They plan to do something even bigger at the Hike in April.

I’ll be glad to talk with anyone interested in writing about any of these topics.

Chris Austin, assistant director of health promotion, substance abuse prevention Student Health Services Center

Page 12

and have never felt so inclined to write a forum letter because I didn’t believe that the writer was absolutely wrong. I may disagree with what is written, but that is very different than thinking that the writer really does not know what they are talking about, like we have.

I do not believe it is the responsibility of everyone on the editorial board to come to the Viewpoint editor and ask for a summary of every column running. I have my own problems with my section. So I don’t think we really learned more about the editorial process, but I hope we have learned more about the standards we should require of ourselves and our writers.

Tyler Dukes

I don’t think it’s the responsibility of everyone on the editorial board to read every column on the Viewpoint page. We have enough to do with our own sections and the paper as a whole to worry about something like that.

As section editors, we have to be able to rely on and trust each other with decisions like these — it’s what makes division of labor (and sanity) possible. On the other hand, if we have doubts about our ability to make these decisions on our own, there is no reason why we can’t go to each other for second opinions.

I do agree, without a doubt, that more discussion needed to have taken place before this column ran, but the discussion has to be initiated by the appropriate section editor. In my mind, this is a trust and communication issue more than anything else.

Tyler Dukes

The fact that a columnist for the Technician has an opinion is not justification for it to run in our, or any, newspaper. That’s why we have an editing process in the first place. The problem with Jeff ’s piece, aside from the fact that it was poorly written, is that he is advocating an illegal activity. This could provide the opportunity for some serious implications against our publication.

Regardless, we’re not backing down to WRAL, we are examining the editorial process after receiving feedback from the community and looking for any possible improvements that can be made. As it happens, there are many improvements that can be made in this editorial process, so in an effort to improve the paper, the board will attempt to make and implement those changes.

There seems to be a fundamental understanding that opinion columnists are exempt from the consequences of their columns, simply because they were expressing their opinions. The truth of the matter is, no one cares about their opinions. They aren’t experts. They aren’t scholars. They aren’t even that experienced with the things they are writing about in most cases. Just as in academia, an opinion is not justification for publication, no matter who you are. What does make people care are facts to support those opinions, input from people with similar ideas and other examples why you’re not the only one who feels this way.

The Technician employs writers and columnists — both are reporters.

Everything aside, we are not leaving Gaither out to dry. We are all responsible for that column, all the way up the food chain, and that will always be the case in similar incidents.

Other feedback Former editor This really makes State look really bad during a capital campaign – as in they could lose a big donation over this.

How, in his right mind, did Eder greenlight this? I realize we made mistakes as editors, but drunk driving is always, ALWAYS, in the ‘No’ column. In a college newspaper, we are supposed to get people NOT to drink and drive, because too many peers are killed in drunk driving accidents. In 2004, Brandon Sova, a sophomore whose mother is the CHASS assistant dean for finance, was killed in a horrific accident on Avent Ferry. His buddy was in the hospital for weeks. WEEKS! I wrote a story on that wreck and how Avent Ferry is a god-awful road for wrecks.

Greg Volk, former Viewpoint editor, wrote a yearly column AGAINST drunk driving because his best friend was killed in a drunk driving accident on Gorman Street. So there is PRECEDENT for us speaking out against drunk driving in Technician.

One administrator I read Jeff’s apology column tonight. While I appreciate him writing the article, I hope the student leaders recognize that his words carry very little credibility, especially given the dramatic 180˚ shift from his previous article.

Some of our students cite freedom of speech as a justification for allowing such articles, when really the discussion should center more on the editor’s responsibility to ensure intelligent debate and discourse. I trust this experience will be a teachable moment for this group of leaders, but more importantly, a lesson that future students will learn from as well.

J. Ryan Powell, economics grad student Prior to initiating a PhD program in Economics here at NC State last fall, I wrote a few columns for The Daily Texan at the University of Texas and the University Star at Texas State University-San Marcos.

I considered it a great privilege to write for both of these publications, as the quality of every edition contributed to the atmosphere of lively discussion that, as I’m sure you are aware, characterizes Austin (and San Marcos!).

I met with Jason Eder in August 2005 and arranged to continue writing columns with the Technician, but a week later (after observing the first two weeks of Technicians) contacted Jason to express my hesitations about writing for a publication which openly prides itself on its mediocrity-an ethic Jason and others referenced on numerous occasions in our meetings.

In interacting with alumni, city officials, and student groups in the past months, I’m frequently embarrassed when individuals mention some of the more deplorable writing (usually found on the opinions page) that REPRESENT our campus.

Although the moralistic air of political conservatism that pervades each edition is, in my opinion, a serious usurpation of a public, student-funded publication; the far more egregious violation is the lack of professionalism on the part of its staff. I’d encourage you to hold a campus-forum regarding the Technician’s image and initiate a pro-active campaign to improve (or merely establish) the Technician’s standards.

Ultimately, as one of numerous NC State students who pays for a publication that I rarely read (and never enjoy reading) the fact that Technician propagates a poor image of NCSU grads in the surrounding community is a serious concern. I do not believe it is unfair to say that if the Technician does not change its image among our campus community, it stands to face mounting scrutiny from the source of its funding.

Kathy Lawrence director of student publications, The University of Texas at Austin

I’d just chalk this up to one of those experiences editors and students must endure in order to learn. It’s appalling she was letting something run without reading and editing it carefully, and it seems the copy desk would have raised a red flag too.

Jan. 18, 2006

Chancellor’s response to community concerns Jim Oblinger chancellor

Thank you for your email regarding the Jeff Gaither column in last Tuesday’s Technician. I share your concerns about the content of his column and also disagree with the decision to print it. I hope you have now seen Mr. Gaither’s formal apology, as printed in the January 17 issue of the paper. Mr. Gaither states, “I am incredibly sorry that I wrote this column. I joke about a lot of things, but I now realize that drunken driving is not a subject to joke about.”

I understand from my staff that the student editorial staff at the Technician has taken responsibility for a failure to adhere to their standards for advance review. In addition, my staff is working with the student media to institute additional training and to develop a media code of ethics.

Let me assure you that we consider drunk driving and driving while impaired to be extremely serious issues of concern. NC State faculty and staff have developed programs and materials designed to communicate the dangers of DWI and work diligently to educate students about the use and abuse of alcohol. Students found guilty of DWI face suspension from the University and employees face termination.

It is my hope that this regrettable incident has provided a forum for thoughtful and serious discussion and a lesson in personal and community responsibility. Thank you again for contacting me.

Howard Spanogle

former high-school publications adviser

He should have to resign immediately. And editor should make sure that happens. She is responsible too because she didn’t read the copy. He endorsed lawbreaking that can lead to murder on the roads. That is how friends feel. They have had spouses and family members killed in unnecessary drunk-driving accidents.

Kelly R. Russ

electronic communications coordinator, Rollins College, Winter Park, Fla.

First, if I was the advisor of this paper and had read this prior to print, I still would have left the ultimate decision to run it or not run it up to the students.

Second, controversial things are printed in the paper everyday. Is it because this isn’t “PC” that there’s such an uproar? I don’t understand why an apology was necessary.

Nothing false was printed — it just happens to be a wildly unpopular opinion of a touchy issue. Since when does a student have to apologize for his opinion?

Students DO drink and drive regularly...as do many adults. No sense sticking our heads in the sand and pretending everyone is driving sober.

Randy Swikle

Illinois state director, Journalism Education Association

In his apology for writing an irresponsible column about drunk driving, the college journalist seems again to

be irresponsible in relating the anecdote about the family of his best friend in high school. Those who know the writer well likely can identify his friend and may lower their opinion of that person as a result of the writer’s words.

To say that after being hit by a drunk driver “the father [who became an invalid] ... was unable to work, his family became poor and his children lost all respect for him” impugns the reputation of the family, it seems to me. To add that the father committed suicide may be offensive to the family as well, if the family prefers privacy. To relate the suicide to the father’ debilitating injury may be an erroneous assumption, too. To say that the drunk driver is a “sorry excuse for a human being” is judgmental in a way that lacks insight and panoramic vision.

To me, the lesson in the example that Bradley sent us is that too many high school and college journalists seem more interested in using their media position to inflate their own egos than in serving the best interests of their readers. As the writer of the column admits, he is arrogant.

In a media culture that seems to nurture arrogance, what checks can we impose upon our scholastic journalists to help keep them on a responsible track of service rather than the far less noble road of selfpromotion?

Page 13

Broadcast on WRAL and Fox50 Friday, Jan. 13 and Saturday, Jan. 14

Fox50 first aired the story on Friday, Jan. 13 on the 10 p.m. newscast.

WRAL broadcast it at 11 p.m. It was rebroadcast between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. Saturday, Jan. 14.

Potentially, the Technician, N.C. States’ campus newspaper reaches more than 16,000 students and that’s what’s got critics so worried that so many eyes see this controversial column. The column in the Viewpoint section of N.C. States’ Technciain had some students accusing the paper of going too far.

WRAL, a CBS affiliate, is owned by Capitol Broadcasting Company of Raleigh, N.C. The station celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2006, is the top news station in the area.

Capitol also owns Fox50.

“Columnist Jeff Gaither called himself an expert in drunk driving since he’d done it so much,” Smith reported.

Craig Lloyd with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said, “It gives us some concerns. We’re coming up to the Superbowl and other holidays,. And it so does give a bit of concern for us.”

The paper’s faculty adviser, Bradley Wilson, said this was a real learning experience for the students. And it’s lead to some changes in the editorial process. He said students will have more input into the process before a column goes to print.

“It’s a how-to guide to basically getting away with drunk driving,” Justin White said. “Even if there’s just one student that reads that article and goes, ‘like wow, I didn’t know I could do this. I’m gonna try this the next time.’ That’s what really upsets me.”

Gaither ends the column with, “Drunk driving is like anything else. There are smart and stupid ways of doing it.

Page 14

“This is a campus newspaper. We’re learning as we go,” Editor Rebecca Heslin said. She added that the column doesn’t really reflect the views of the paper, but it did uncover flaws in the editorial process. “My regret would be that there wasn’t more discussion that went into it.”

The role of the columnist E-mail discussion

Bradley Wilson Jan. 30, 3:35 p.m. bradley_wilson@ncsu.edu

Jeff Gaither Jan. 30, 2006, 4:18 p.m. jbgaithe@ncsu.edu

Almost a month ago now, we ran a column about drinking and driving. As a result of the feedback on that column, we developed 11 points as part of an action plan.

Your feedback is important!

Please give me your feedback on the two points below and how well we are doing.

What kind of feedback have you, a member of the editorial board or a columnist, given the columnists or received as a columnist?

How could we improve this system?

A) The editorial page editor will discuss the content of all columns on the editorial page at least two days in advance with the editorial board. The editorial board will give feedback on the content of columns just as editorial board members give feedback on all content in the paper.

B) The editorial page editor will invite columnists to the editorial board meeting at which their columns will be discussed so they can attend and participate in the discussion not only on the content of their columns but the content of the entire paper.

To be frank, I think these points are a waste of time. Three people (myself, Jason and Becca) screwed up simultaneously, and as a result we ran a column we shouldn’t have run. So everyone just needs to be more careful in the future. But we don’t need to create this new screening process that will inconvenience everyone.

We should just stress to the Viewpoint editor, and all the columnists, that we must be careful what we write/run. That should do the trick, I think. But this rigorous review process seems, to me, like burning down a barn to roast an egg.

Daniel Underwood Jan. 30, 4:11 p.m. djunderw@unity.ncsu.edu

I am rather strongly against both (A) and (B). The idea of a council assembling to discuss whether or not every column is “appropriate” to run on the Viewpoint page of the Technician seems borderline Orwellian.

Before implementing any major changes to the Viewpoint — changes which would obviously have been prompted by Gaither’s recent controversial column — it behooves us to settled upon “what” he did wrong, if anything. Of course it caused an uproar, but was it “wrong” for him to have written it?

I don’t have to look far to find similar examples of columns that caused near mass hysteria within local campus groups. But just because a column causes a ruckus, it isn’t necessarily inappropriate.

If explicitly encouraging illegal behavior is wrong, let’s disallow that. But I fear placing the evaluation of a column’s appropriateness in the hands of a board equipped with only their subjective, though seasoned, discretion.

If I’m missing something and this response seems misdirected or overshot, please forgive me.

Greg Doucette Jan. 30, 5:15 p.m. tgdoucet@ncsu.edu

I don’t want to end up with a rehash of our last Viewpoint staff meeting, so I’ll just say I agree with Daniel on this one. The supposed “uproar” and Jeff’s change of heart notwithstanding, I remain thoroughly unconvinced his editorial should have been scrapped in the first place and wonder if we’re creating a solution in need of a problem...

But that’s just my $0.02, and I could be wrong.

Tyler Dukes Jan. 31, 1:41 p.m. mtdukes@ncsu.edu

The concept of the editorial board discussing the decision to run a Viewpoint column is not Orwellian, it’s just common sense.

None of the columnists is by any means entitled to space on the Viewpoint page.

They ideally earn the ability to print their views by researching, reporting and writing thought-provoking columns that in some way affect the campus community.

The reason Jeff ’s column created the dialogue among the staff at Technician is not simply because he caused an “uproar,” and to think so is sheer lunacy. Several columns run in Technician have caused such an uproar, and we have not taken steps like these.

The problem, as we have addressed it, was a failure in the system to prevent bad columns from running in the newspaper. It’s the same system that keeps news, features and sports in check to make sure articles are accurate, well reported and well written.

As I have said before, columnists seem to be under the mistaken notion that people care about their opinions.

They do not.

People care about their writing, their researching, their reporting and how their opinions string these elements together in a cohesive manner to present a valid argument. There is a misguided attempt among many of our columnists to hide behind the First Amendment, despite blatant failures in most of the more important aspects of a column.

“Placing the evaluation of a column’s appropriateness in the hands of a board equipped with only their subjective, though seasoned, discretion” is how we need to do things, because we put our name on this paper.

We stand behind what we print, even when those who write the columns, at times, do not. We take the f lak for the failures of our editorial system. We lose the credibility among our readers and in the national community when things go wrong. We are the ones who put 40 hours a week or more into an organization which is most often recognized by its errors.

Our subjective seasoned discretion, although not always completely right, is one of the things that keeps this paper in the stands every weekday morning. Another one of these things is the hard work and dedication of our columnists, designers, writers, photographers, illustrators and cartoonists.

If you fear placing the decision on whether to run a column in our hands, tell us why.

From my point of view, there can only be two reasons: you either don’t trust in our ability to make this decision, or you in some way feel your column is not up to par. Although you are titled to both of these views, both also have solutions.

Take part in the dialogue about your column or work harder to make your column better.

I doubt Winston Smith faced such an easy decision.

Page 15

Jeff Gaither Jan. 31, 4:35 p.m. jbgaithe@ncsu.edu

This seems to boil down to: “Technician’s editors are in the end responsible for whatever runs. Therefore, they have the right to take any steps necessary to ensure that bad columns are not published.” It seems a sound argument to me. I think the whole intensive review process is overkill (“burning down a barn to roast an egg,” as I told Bradley) but it’s the Board’s time and the Board’s collective ass, therefore let the Board discuss every column if it so desires.

Daniel Underwood Jan. 31, 6:12 p.m. djunderw@unity.ncsu.edu

I’m really not trying to pick an argument with any particular person, but the following quote illustrates my sole contention: “The reason Jeff ’s column created the dialogue among the staff at Technician is not simply because he caused an ‘uproar,’ and to think so is sheer lunacy.

Several columns run in Technician have caused such an uproar, and we have not taken steps like these.

The problem, as we have addressed it, was a failure in the system to prevent bad columns from running in the newspaper.”

Since Jeff’s column spurned dialogue among the staff, and since the dialogue has resulted in the conclusion that there “was a failure in the system to prevent bad columns from running,” presumably Jeff’s column was bad. If Jeff ’s column was “bad,” then please tell us “why,” so that we can better strive for journalistic integrity. If his column wasn’t “bad,” then how did the systematic failure surface? Have I or anyone else been failing to meet certain standards or criteria that Technician demands?

I don’t have a problem with the idea of an editorial board reviewing every column. It wouldn’t even matter if I did. Certainly it is the editorial board’s right and responsibility to make judgments on what should and should not appear in the paper. But, as a columnist who seeks to follow Technician policy, both written and implied, please tell us if anything new has recently been shuffled into the bag of “don’t do’s”.

Greg Behr Jan. 31, 6:44 p.m. gebehr@gmail.com

The issue that divided Gaither’s column from all others was exactly what you said in one of your previous e-mails. It is unethical for us to run a column that promotes an illegal activity. That is the issue. I can’t speak for everyone on the editorial board only for himself, but I see this as an opportunity to improve the quality of the Viewpoint section, as we improve the other sections as well. The standards we strive to reflect on our publication seem to have gone to the wayside and we should do all we can to correct that.

We, the other sections, are trying to improve the content we publish by setting goals like obtaining more sources and removing all aspects of our opinions from our articles. We leave that for you columnists. Now where the columnists fit into this strategy is by doing more research for columns and having less generalized opinions. It would be nice for all of us to sit down and discuss expectations both from the columnists vantage points and those of the editorial board, especially the few of us who have a vested interest in improving the Viewpoint section.

Jeff Gaither Jan. 31, 6:14 p.m. jbgaithe@ncsu.edu

Greg Doucette Jan. 31, 8:53 p.m. tgdoucet@ncsu.edu

Not that the Board needs anyone’s permission, I didn’t mean to imply that. But it seems like a lot of columns are so manifestly inoffensive that it’s a waste of time for every Board member to review them all.

Why not just designate a Board member to review the columns for the day/week, and if in his/her judgment either of said columns has a CHANCE of being unprintable, to call a Board meeting. Naturally this editor would have to exercise good judgment, and always err on the side of caution, but at least you wouldn’t all have to decide, every week, that Meghan Woodall’s vicious column on coffee-shops, and Kate Kosinski’s ruthless attack on germs, could safely be run.

Just an idea. But I suppose this policy would not satisfy the Board of Trustees anyhow.

No one doubts the editors’ right to review whatever they choose, their competence in doing so, or the “quality concerns” about the paper raised by the community. And just speaking for myself, it’s against my philosophy on life to think I’m somehow entitled to column inches in a paper wrought by others’ effort and $$$.

But none of that precludes judgment on the wisdom of our new Master Plan.

The “diverse opinions” of Canon 4, after all...

For my own edification though, why wasn’t our new Master Plan enacted after Daniel’s sorostitutes column last semester?

Page 16

Chris Dappert/Technician

Ashley Ridge, a senior in biology reads a response by the editor about the article that ran Aug. 26, 2005 in the Technician.

The column, about “sorostitutes,” resulted in a rally outside of the Witherspoon Student Center that about 250 sorority members attended.

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 • Page 5

Viewpoint

Technician

The job of an editorial columnist Since my drunken driving column, there has been a lot of talk at Technician about what constitutes a good editorial column and what the true job of an editorial columnist is. The consensus seems to be that an editorial columnist should express intelligent, well-reasoned, well-supported arguments that are relevant to the lives of readers.

Jeff However, no one ever Gaither said that an editorial Staff Columnist columnist shouldn’t make people mad. And it is in the nature of the job that an editorial columnist SHOULD make people mad. Why? Consider the following column excerpt: “Murder is wrong. To kill a human being is to rob him of future happiness and bring great pain to his family and friends.

Murder should be punished with incarceration of no less than 10 years.”

What’s wrong with that? It’s true enough; everyone agrees that it is true. But in fact, that little excerpt is a bad premise for a column precisely BECAUSE everyone agrees that it is true.

A columnist should not merely express opinions.

He should express opinions that differ from mainstream thought.

People do not wish to read an opinion that is universally held; they wish to read

an opinion that is new and fresh, and to which few people knowingly or openly subscribe.

It is in the nature of things, therefore, that many people should disagree with a good column. If everyone agreed with it, it would add nothing to the collective consciousness and would fail to enrich or edify anyone.

It is the job of the editorial columnist to make people angry.

If no one gets angry, then either everyone agrees with the columnist, or no one cares what he has said in the first place.

If no one gets angry, then he has either said something everyone already knows or has said nothing at all.

I suggest that the ideal model for a good editorial columnist is Socrates.

Socrates was the father of philosophy.

He was a poor man in Athens who walked around all day, arguing with everyone, courteously but firmly.

His goal in arguing, he claimed, was not belligerence for the sake of belligerence, but rather to make people question their opinions and prevent them from believing they knew things which they did not know.

That, I believe, is the job of an editorial columnist; to make people question their opinions. Take my colleague Daniel Underwood’s column about sorostitutes.

As a result of his column, people were forced to reconsider their opinions about sorority women. Sorority women themselves were forced to wonder what sort

of impression they were conveying when they walked around shouting into their cell phones with their cleavage open to the world.

Was Daniel correct in his opinion about sororities? I don’t know, and I don’t care.

He forced people to reconsider the notion of sorority girls, and therefore did his job.

(I need hardly add that my drunken driving column was not a good column, though it differed from mainstream thought, because it advised people to hurt themselves, which no columnist has a right to do.)

So go ahead and send your hate mail, folks. Send it to us columnists. You’re only telling us what a great job we’re doing.

It is unavoidable that we will make people angry, but we will cause people to think, too. We cannot have one without the other.

All successful editorial columnists are, to some degree, hated.

For if they are successful then people like their columns, and if people like their columns these columns must be saying something original, and if the column is saying something original, then some readers will be angered by it. But other readers will think about it, and as a result they will grow intellectually and become better, wiser people. It is to these readers that we write.

E-mail Jeff at viewpoint@technicianonline. com.

Page 17

Statement of principles National Conference of Editorial Writers Adopted in Philadelphia, Oct. 10, 1975 Editorial writing is more than another way of making money. It is a profession devoted to the public welfare and to public service. The chief duty of its practitioners is to provide the information and guidance toward sound judgments that are essential to the healthy functioning of a democracy. Therefore editorial writers owe it to their integrity and that of their profession to observe the following injunctions: 1. The editorial writer should present facts honestly and fully. It is dishonest to base an editorial on half-truth. The writer should never knowingly mislead the reader, misrepresent a situation, or place any person in a false light. No consequential error should go uncorrected.

2. The editorial writer should draw fair conclusions from the stated facts, basing them upon the weight of evidence and upon the writer’s considered concept of the public good.

3. The editorial writer should never use his or her influence to seek personal favors of any kind. Gifts of value, free travel and other favors that can compromise integrity, or appear to do so, should not be accepted.

• The writer should be constantly alert to conflicts of interest, real or apparent, including those that may arise from financial holdings, secondary employment, holding public office or involvement in political, civic, or other organizations. Timely public disclosure can minimize suspicion.

• Editors should seek to hold syndicates to these standards.

• The writer, further to enhance editorial-page credibility, also should encourage the institution he or she represents to avoid conflicts of interest, real or apparent.

4. The editorial writer should realize that the public will appreciate more the value of the First Amendment if others are accorded an opportunity for expression. Therefore, voice should be given to diverse opinions, edited faithfully to reflect stated views. Targets of criticism -- whether in a letter, editorial cartoon or signed column -- especially deserve an opportunity to respond; editors should insist that syndicates adhere to this standard.

5. The editorial writer should regularly review his or her conclusions. The writer should not hesitate to consider new information and to revise conclusions. When changes of viewpoint are substantial, readers should be informed.

6. The editorial writer should have the courage of well-founded convictions and should never write Page 18

Reminders for Technician Editorial Writers 1. All writers for the Technician are reporters first and writers second, including columnists.

2. If expertise is not possessed by the writer about a given subject (few columnists at the college level possess expertise on any subject matter) reporters should conduct research to add validity to an argument. The University is full of experts with opinions who would be more than willing to add their expertise to the background research.

3. Generalized opinion on a topic is not acceptable. All columns should be researched and possess more than the writer’s anecdotal experience.

4. Columns should not condone illegal activities.

5. Columns should not illicit hate for the sole purpose of being hateful.

6. Although a columnist does possess a First Amendment right to believe and to say what they wish, this does not mean that the Technician will print everything.

Editorial utopia We at the Technician would like to encourage columnists to research, to write and to collaborate their work in the office with other section editors.

This will help the paper as a whole be stronger. Everything that is printed in the paper reflects upon the entire staff, even when it is the opinion of one individual. We need to work together to believe in everything we print.

Reminders created by Jake Seaton and Greg Behr, spring 2006

anything that goes against his or her conscience.

Many editorial pages are products of more than one mind, and sound collective judgment can be achieve only through sound individual judgments. Thoughtful individual opinions should be respected.

7. The editorial writer always should honor pledges of confidentiality. Such pledges should be made only to serve the public’s need for information.

8. The editorial writer always should discourage publication of editorials prepared by an outside writing service and presented as the newspaper’s own.

Failure to disclose the source of such editorials is unethical, and particularly reprehensible when the service is in the employ of a special interest.

9. The editorial writer should encourage thoughtful criticism of the press, especially within the profession, and promote adherence to the standards set forth in this statement of principles.

dilemma

DIRECTIONS: Below are a series of questions built upon the issues surrounding Jeff Gaither’s column. These are ethical dilemmas and seldom have a right or wrong answer. Site as many specifics as possible, including relevant court cases or legal material as well as material provided from professional journalism organizations.

1. First things first: Would you have published Jeff Gaither’s column? Remember, the paper had the “right” to publish the column. But, should the Technician have published this column? What standards would you set for deciding whether or not to publish editorial columns?

2. What chain of command, or system of checks and balances, does an article follow at your school?

Detail who, by name or department, reads a column before it makes it into print.

3. In the writing process, the section editor should sit down with the columnist or reporter to discuss the story concept and the first draft. If you were the editorial page editor and a columnist came in with an idea to write about “how people really feel about driving under the influence of alcohol,” in what direction would you encourage him to take. If the columnist said, “I know students drink and drive.

Why don’t we just admit it and discuss some ways they can avoid getting a DUI?”, how would you respond?

4. One of the early attacks on the paper was from a student who said he was going to explore ways to have funding withdrawn from the newspaper and have an administrator start reading material before it went to print. How would you respond to a student making such comments particularly in light of the Hosty v. Carter case?

5. Journalists acknowledge that community standards always come into play when determining the content of their publication. What standards came into play for the publication of this column? Were community standards violated?

6. By its very nature, a column is the opinion of one individual. Editorials reflect the opinion of the staff. In all other articles, opinionated statements should be attributed to the source. Yet the entire newspaper staff came under fire after this column was published. Should the publication of controversial material reflect on the publication even when it’s clearly labeled as a column?

7. A reaction from one staff member after the incident was to “lay low,” not to publish any controversial material. Should media shy away from publishing controversial material? Why or why not?

8. One argument against publishing this column was that it was advocating an illegal activity, driving under the influence of alcohol. Should media be allowed to publish editorial material advocating illegal activities? Under what circumstances, if ever? Does publication of such material support one of the core principles of journalists, “The central purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with accurate and reliable information they need to function in a free society. “?

Resources: Student Press Law Center — “The 10 Questions College Student Journalists Most Frequently Ask About Their Rights” • http://www.splc.org/legalresearch.asp?id=2 Student Press Law Center — “Hosty v. Carter: The Latest Battle for College Press Freedom” • http://www.splc.org/ legalresearch.asp?id=49 Project for Excellence in Journalism — “Professional Guidelines” • http://www.journalism.org/resources/guidelines/ default.asp

Page 19

By Bradley Wilson, Coordinator of Student Media Advising Š2006 by N.C. State Student Media