Over the last two weeks, we have published two articles that have garnered a substantial amount of attention, both in positive and negative lights. These articles have also brought certain flaws to our attention.
Firstly, I stand by my writers and their intentions. Our intentions are never to be biased, subjective or oppressive; rather, we strive for the opposite, to bring critical, objective coverage meant to educate and empower our readers. While execution lacked substance in some circumstances, intentions were never in question.
Second of all, thank you. Our job is to engage our readers whether that is positively or negatively. In order for further conversations to develop around certain topics, we need engagement from our readers and the greater K-W community. And to provide proper discourse, it is imperative we are called out when there are concerns. So thank you to those that brought forth concerns so we can have this discourse.
The first article in question, ‘Straight to the gay club,’ was intended to break down stereotypes often associated with LGBTQ bars. We wanted to address that these stereotypes don’t mean anything by showing a comfortable place. To some, they loved the idea; they felt this shed a positive light on the open, comfortable area. But to some, it came off as tokenizing a group of people that shouldn’t be tokenized further than they feel they already are. It is unfair to anyone who felt oppressed by the execution or felt it lacked purpose.
The second article in question, ‘The impact of extreme student activism,’ looked at the other side of student activism. Over the last two years we have covered multiple acts by students who stand up for what they believe in: their opposition to IPRM, the opposition to the statues, a sit-in at the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union office and student’s and faculty’s response to 22 positions being cut. We have covered all of the advocacy. With this article, our intention was to look at how this activism can be seen from the alternative and administrative point of view and how it is received.
Never was our intention to quiet those that feel greatly they need to advocate for change. Advocacy is what creates change and without it, the status quo will never be questioned.
We wanted to create another side of discussion I felt we’d been missing throughout all of our reporting.
Student voices should have been involved and the editing process, including choice and placement of photos, should have been more thorough on my part. And for that, I am sorry.
We apologize for the errors and oversights we had and we appreciate the continued discourse to help us provide better news to the Laurier and K-W community.
I continue to stand by my writers and their intentions. But we, too, are students and we’re always learning. We only hope you can help us continue to strive to be Laurier’s premier student newspaper.
If you’d like to discuss this further, feel free to email me at editor@thecord.ca.
