Hey Wesleying: Let’s Talk About The Argus

, by Ezra SilkSuzanna Hirsch, Executive Editors

Yesterday, a senior blogger for Wesleying, writing under the pseudonym “Whatshername,” posted a lengthy critique of The Argus. As former editors of the newspaper, we would like to address her post.

“Whatshername”’s basic point is that, in two ways, The Argus is unique compared to a selection of other student newspapers. First, it compensates its editors-in-chief. Secondly, The Argus is a bi-weekly newspaper, unlike the weekly papers she cites. Overall, she questions the necessity of printing twice a week, asks why members of the staff are compensated, and wonders whether this is a proper use of student funds.

As “Whatshername” wrote, this year, the Argus initially received $40,000 from the SBC. We used this money primarily for printing and office supplies. Ultimately, we only needed $25,000 to cover these basic costs. We had agreed to return $15,000 to the SBC, but ultimately they only requested $10,000, which we gave to them in March. We saved the majority of the remaining $5,000, which will help us become more financially independent next year. We receive roughly $10,000 to $12,000 per year in advertising revenue, and this year, we used this money to compensate certain members of our staff, who we believe have earned it through their sustained time commitment to the newspaper. In general, we have always compensated key members of our staff, especially those who routinely work past midnight. We give a $250 stipend to the editors-in-chief, who regularly stay at the office from 4:30 p.m. until 5 a.m. twice a week.

In other words, The Argus is primarily paying students for their work with its own money, not with the student body’s. The SBC, then, is essentially paying for our printing costs. We should also mention that we have undertaken lengthy negotiations to ensure that our budget is efficient, and, in the last few years, we have taken substantial budget cuts.

With this said, we are wondering what the real impetus is behind “Whatshername”’s post. Theoretically, it is a critique of the way The Argus uses student funds. The top of the post is, after all, adorned by a giant, rainbow-colored dollar sign. But why critique our funding now? After reading through her post a few times, it seems clear to us that it is a generalized assault on The Argus charading as a “dialogue”-promoting investigative report on the paper’s finances.

“Whatshername,” in one of her many asides, discusses the “haterade” that may be leveled against her in response to her post, entitled “Let’s Talk About the Argus.” “In researching and writing this post I have been well aware of the haterade (love that word) that could be thrown my way,” she writes. “Ultimately, I have decided that it doesn’t matter how much crap I get for this post.”

We have one question: Is it really so brave and controversial to criticize The Argus? We are not delusional. We know that people love to make fun of us.

Beyond this, the timing of this post is especially savvy. The Argus embarrassed itself with the recent and inexcusable falsehoods that were published about positive HIV tests. Surely, many students are questioning the competence of The Argus editorial staff at the moment. We don’t blame them. It was an awful mistake.

Despite these errors (and we admit that there have been others in the past), we feel the need to defend The Argus as an institution. The Argus was founded in 1868, and is the oldest bi-weekly college newspaper in the country. We have no plans to change that. Publishing twice a week allows us to print the news while it is still news. Our peer institutions may do it differently, but that is no reason to say their way is better.

As we’ve discussed, and as “Whatshername” has pointed out: “your student newspaper is not free.” There is no denying this. We appreciate the funds that the SBC generously allocates us every year. Let us give some examples of how we try to earn them.

When someone is assaulted on campus, we call Public Safety and attempt to interview the victim(s). When the endowment loses hundreds of millions of dollars, as it did recently, we harangue the folks at North College for as much information as they will give us. Every week, an Argus reporter attends the WSA meeting and takes notes. Every other week, we meet with President Roth around his conference table in South College, and question him on a wide range of campus issues. When Wesleyan sues its own Chief Investment Officer behind closed doors, we go down to Middletown Superior Court and pay the clerk for the legal complaint.

These are some of the ways The Argus reports on campus life. We won’t bore you with the rest. Our main point is to question why “Whatshername” is suddenly trying to initiate a campus debate about The Argus’ finances. There are certainly questions about recent content-related errors in the newspaper that are worth discussing. But they appear in this piece as little more than a justification for an unjustified attack on the way The Argus is run.

We believe Wesleying can and should criticize The Argus when criticism is warranted. In this case, it was not.

  • Stu

    “Ultimately, we only needed $25,000 to cover these basic costs. We had agreed to return $15,000 to the SBC, but ultimately they only requested $10,000, which we gave to them in March.” So, “ultimately” you guys still suck at writing

  • anon

    Thank you guys, Whatshername’s post was bothering me so much.

  • anon

    Stu–Having a word repeated in two neighboring sentences is not really a huge deal.

    Great response, Argus.

  • ’09

    “Our main point is to question why “Whatshername” is suddenly trying to initiate a campus debate about The Argus’ finances.”

    1) Is that even so? Where in this Wespeak have you shown the timing of the debate to be somehow suspect?
    2) Why does the timing of the debate (or ANY debate) even matter if it involves legitimate points of contention?

    By “questioning the timing of the debate” you are attempting to dismiss the debate arbitrary, illegitimate, unfounded, unnecessary, etc without actually having to demonstrate these things to be the case. Because you can’t. Because clearly a large number of your classmates believe the debate is worth having. And that renders your “main point” entirely moot.

    Again, unless you have something specific to allege about the timing of the debate, I don’t see how it’s an issue. Rather, I see a fairly pernicious attempt to squelch a discussion that is becoming increasingly necessary.

  • ’11

    “Beyond this, the timing of this post is especially savvy. The Argus embarrassed itself with the recent and inexcusable falsehoods that were published about positive HIV tests. Surely, many students are questioning the competence of The Argus editorial staff at the moment. We don’t blame them. It was an awful mistake.”

    They explain in the article that this is why the timing of the debate is important.

  • ’09

    @’11: I was pointing out that their main point was to question the timing, but they never pointed out why it was questionable. In fact, as you quote, they pointed out why it…makes sense…

  • ’09

    Alas, I shouldn’t have been surprised. Vague, unfounded insinuations of conspiracy have been Ezra’s modus operandi since Day 1.

  • ’13

    “Our main point is to question why “Whatshername” is suddenly trying to initiate a campus debate about The Argus’ finances.”

    You don’t respond to responsible and researched critique by insinuating hidden motives behind it, immature claims like this do not convince anyone. Even if there are (something that really does not seem to be the case) it should not matter as long as you provide a response to the critique. You really should be ashamed of what you are writing and of the immaturity you are exhibiting. You need to be replaced.

  • ’10

    Sorry, you guys blew it here. You should have simply responded to her questions, rather than try to poison the well and insinuate an evil plot against the Argus. The fact is that many people actually wanted to know this information, and a reasoned response answering the questions and explaining the rationale would have silenced critics while not making you look like a bunch of douches.

  • Gabe Lezra

    “the Argus initially received $40,000 from the SBC. We used this money primarily for printing and office supplies. Ultimately, we only needed $25,000 to cover these basic costs. We had agreed to return $15,000 to the SBC, but ultimately they only requested $10,000, which we gave to them in March. We saved the majority of the remaining $5,000, which will help us become more financially independent next year. We receive roughly $10,000 to $12,000 per year in advertising revenue, and this year, we used this money to compensate certain members of our staff, who we believe have earned it through their sustained time commitment to the newspaper. In general, we have always compensated key members of our staff, especially those who routinely work past midnight. We give a $250 stipend to the editors-in-chief, who regularly stay at the office from 4:30 p.m. until 5 a.m. twice a week.

    In other words, The Argus is primarily paying students for their work with its own money, not with the student body’s. The SBC, then, is essentially paying for our printing costs. We should also mention that we have undertaken lengthy negotiations to ensure that our budget is efficient, and, in the last few years, we have taken substantial budget cuts.”

    Isn’t this a response, or am I missing something? Lets all cool off and talk about Star Wars (oh, wait that was yesterday… still).

  • ’11

    Gabe,

    No need to twist yourself in a knot getting all defensive-like. Money is fungible. Your point sucks.

    Look, we all get it. You want to run the Argus next year. But wouldn’t it be EVEN BETTER to be remembered as the editor who reformed a troubled institution that was once hallowed but now many people are ashamed of?

    I think so. So don’t be so defensive. Join the criticism, then figure out how to make it irrelevant.

    Step 1 is admitting you have a problem…

  • Gabe Lezra

    :-) I would have to throw myself in front of a train if I had to run this thing–I’ve seen how hard it is. Like Ezra and Suzanna said, there’s a lot to criticize about the Argus (like why it doesn’t pay me, for example).
    And I still think we’re missing the point by not talking about Star Wars.

  • J ’10

    I think it’s more than clear that the substantial (and justified) outpouring of anger that followed the Argus’ STD fiasco has been funneled into the financial issue raised by Whatshername.

    The questions raised in Whatshername’s post are fair; the tone is not. Anyone can see the insinuation that the Argus staff is swindling campus by not allocating all of its SBC funding to printing and related costs.

    As for the question of whether a newspaper so-financed is a prudent and beneficial use of university resources, I think the answer is a resounding yes. A campus newspaper capable of quality reporting is an invaluable resource, and will remain so until Wesleying (or a similar source) develops the necessary organizational structure to investigate stories and maintain an accountability to the student body. Furthermore, I would hazard that if Wesleying were to make such changes, students would not be happy with the new format. Thus, if you are questioning the value of the Argus based on issues you take with it’s content, that is a separate discussion. And if you’d like to see better writing or fewer editorial mistakes, join the paper or write a wespeak. Just don’t idly whine or spew vitriol on Wesleying or the ACB, it is plainly unproductive.

    Whatshername’s post may not have been intended to capitalize on the campus rage that followed the extremely unprofessional and damaging STD error of last week, but it certainly did. So before you jump on the anti-Argus bandwagon, remember that the problems you have with your campus paper are probably entirely distinct from those presented by Whatshername.

Twitter