The staff of the Daily Gazette was stunned to browse through The Phoenix's opinions section yesterday to find the Gazette's comment section described as "hateful, vitriolic and ignorant."
Perhaps the editors of The Phoenix need to read the comments left on the Gazette more carefully. Over the course of this past week, students have left nearly eighty comments, and the worst language to be found was "jerk." Indeed, the comments were passionate, considered, and informed.
In fact, an editorial proclaiming a rival newspaper as "hateful" and "ignorant" is more vitriolic than any comment on the Gazette. And while the Gazette moderates every comment posted, we have only found two comments out of the 849 from the past six months to be objectionable.
The Gazette believes Swarthmore needs more forums for discussion, and apparently the Swarthmore community agrees with us. Far from being a "marginal online forum," as The Phoenix suggests, the Gazette provides a place where busy Swarthmore students, alumni, faculty members, and administrators can talk and debate.
While The Phoenix might wish all written dialogue on the Swarthmore campus occurred within its pages, publication of a tiny handful of letters once-a-week is not enough.
Through the Gazette and the Swarthmore Admitted Students forum I ran for three years, I've witnessed an enormous amount of online, anonymous discussion by Swarthmore students. I know that that vast majority of Swarthmore students are mature adults, perfectly capable of handling a little freedom.
The Daily Gazette is not the Daily Jolt. Perhaps the editors of The Phoenix should look to publications that use anonymous comments, like The New York Times, USA Today, and the Daily Gazette to see how the internet can foster conversation and debate.
Miles Skorpen
Editor-in-Chief
Andrew Quinton
2.21.08 @ 08:02
I read the Phoenix editorial and just don't see the trashing of the Gazette that seems to be implied here. While the editorial could have done a little more to distinguish between the kind of commentary on the DG and that on the Jolt, the author(s) did make a point to single out the Jolt as the "particular" source of the hate and vitriol.
Although its correctness is debatable, the basic idea of "anonymous debate is not an ideal state" is reasonable and worth expressing. Multiple DG commenters have either stated that their experience would be improved if more people used their real names or started to use a real name during the recent discussions. Amazon.com goes out of its way to highlight "real name" reviewers, clearly since they think their customers will respond better to a non-anonymous review. I know I do.
That doesn't mean that anonymous debate doesn't have value. The Gazette has served as an extremely valuable resource through this debate. Public (in-person) forums probably won't materialize until after many of the discussion participants have moved onto something else (if they occur at all). Some people are indeed more comfortable expressing opinions on highly personal issues online than in person, and the anonymous environment fosters that.
But acknowledging the value of anonymous debate does not exclude one from supporting more face-to-face interactions, like the ones called for in the Phoenix editorial. When possible, they do make dialogue more constructive and progress faster and encourage people to be more accountable. The main thrust of the Phoenix editorial–which is that the use of a more personal approach by those who found the Republican flyers offensive would be effective–has little to do with the utility of anonymous debates. The point is not that the DG discussion is not useful, but that in-person discussion is also necessary.
Yes, the Phoenix could have pointed out the positive results of the DG comments discussions and done more to distinguish between the Gazette and the Jolt. The Gazette–and you personally, since you signed the editorial–deserve a lot of credit for making that discussion possible. A gentle reminder that the DG has been the home of fruitful debate is definitely warranted, although perhaps it would best fit as a letter-to-the-editor in the Phoenix.
But I just don't understand the need to make statements such as "The Phoenix might wish all written dialogue on the Swarthmore campus occurred within its pages" or write that the Phoenix accused a "rival" newspaper as "hateful" and "ignorant". I'm dating myself here, but I have strong memories of highly strained Gazette-Phoenix relations during 2004-05. Both sides invested a lot of energy bashing and plotting against the other; it was a complete waste of time. From then until I left the Gazette after the fall '06 semester, relations were much better and the "rivalry" friendly. I'm worried that this editorial is going to incite another round of sniping between the publications.