To The Wesleyan Community:
We would like to apologize for the serious oversight we made in today’s article and headline on the results from ASHA’s STI clinic. Three students tested positive for STIs, not for HIV. We understand how damaging the error is for the work of ASHA and its work with the Middletown community.
We would like to add that these errors were no fault of the writer.
We sincerely apologize for this oversight.
-The Argus Editorial Board
18 Comments
Argus needs help
I think it’s getting to the point where the administration or the WSA needs to bankroll an advisor for the Argus. Seriously, you guys need help.
If this didn’t speak for itself, I’d compile the long list of very serious errors that happened just this semester.
MR. Quality Control
How sloppy can you guys get? Perhaps the Argus should discontinue trying to be a reputable news source on campus and just stick to the publishing the “Blargus.” It worked for the New York post!
David Lott, '65
“The errors were no fault of the writer . . . ”
That’s kind of amazing. How about reporting just how this screw up occurred? Both you and your audience might learn something from the exercise.
'10
YOU ARE A FUCKING JOKE
'12
I thought Ezra was ombudsman. Hm
ugh
what a fucking embarrassment
David Lott, '65
The joke is that a newspaper has four editors in chief.
'10
the “FUCKING JOKE” was @the argus, not you David Lott ’65
David Lott, '65
Well, thanks, but you would not have been the first to call me that.
Anonymous
The paper comes out twice a week; I believe this semester two EICs cover one night, two the other.
David Lott, '65
“I believe this semester two EICs cover one night, two the other.”
So the New York Times should have seven editors in chief, right? Or fourteen.
I believe no one wanted to make a decision that would hurt someone’s feelings, and that four people instead of one get to put something nice on a resume.
Advice to employers: Do not place much weight on “Editor in Chief, Wesleyan Argus.”
'09
An alternate theory would be that none of the 4 editors was willing to give up enough of their other resume-padding activities so that they’d have enough time on their hands to run the Argus. If your editor candidates are all only 25% committed to the job, you pretty much have to hire all 4.
Conclusion is the same – employers should not place much weight on the title. That said, will any of these editors disclose on their resume that the job was shared 4 ways? Unlikely.
GOLD alum
@’10, if a 60-year-old man mean-spiritedly attacking the college kids at his alma mater’s college newspaper isn’t a joke, then I don’t know what is. How sad!
'05
@’09, I wonder if they’ll mention this snafu on their resumes
'09
@’05, I think the chances of them mentioning this on their resumes are about equal to the chances of them mentioning the time they almost got the University sued by the Kennedy estate (http://wesleyanargus.com/2010/02/02/corrections-2/) or the time they abetted career-altering libel and defamation against a former professor (won’t link).
Old College Reporter '72
I understand from an anonymous source that it is actually hard to recruit for the Argus staff these days. The alternative to the four-way EIC situation might have been no EIC. College journalism used to be a gateway to a career, but with the decline of print journalism, those looking to burnish resumes look elsewhere.
Also, any points for quickly and abjectly apologizing for this big stupid mistake?
The first comment above about bankrolling isn’t far off… if an alum really wants to improve the Argus, a gift for meaingful pay for a single EIC who stays up all night two nights a week, oversees all the staff and their assignments, and takes the blame for errors, would help.
David Lott, '65
“Also, any points for quickly and abjectly apologizing for this big stupid mistake?
None whatsoever, because (1) they did not explain how the mistake was made and (2) the “corrected” article contained another (though less egregious) mistake that remains uncorrected.
David Lott, '65
Gold–I’m 67. If I were 60 I would have graduated Wesleyan at age 11.
I started reading the Argus because I wanted an unfiltered view of Wesleyan that I can’t get from (say) the alumni magazine. I have not yet been informed that the comments section is only for people who are not old.
Mean spirited? Unlike your quick post, none of mine contain personal characterizations or disparagement. They do point out sloppy work or thinking, which is rampant. My question is whether such mediocre work is rampant elsewhere at Wesleyan, and whether there is anyone who dares point it out to the detriment of the tender feelings of Wesleyan undergraduates.