Haven’t ever done a blog, but I thought this might be a useful exercise. Last year, I read or at least scanned the McGill Daily, when it came out (twice a week) and was usually struck by examples of
1) lazy reporting;
2) misleading, sometimes manipulative language;
3) inaccuracies, which often go uncorrected or miscorrected;
4) mudslinging at national groups, flaunted as “controversy” regardless of whether the attacks are shallow or immature, or whether they could add to the normalization of derogation;
5) pseudo-liberalism [the liberalism I refer to as being betrayed here is social liberalism], such as in the frequent use of the word “progressive” to lobby for opportunistic, undemocratic policies in service of an inflexible political agenda;
6) editorials that advocate for increased privileges for stereotypically underrepresented groups (privileges which may in fact be just) while deliberately obscuring questions of individual freedom, questions that should be at the forefront of students’ attention as they make decisions with lasting effects;
7) bad taste, often featuring extraneous cultural studies jargon, in the Culture section …
The list could go on and at some later date, it probably will. In the meantime, I’ve decided to document the errors, infelicities, EMO-writing, empty-headed pretentiousness and obscurantism I encounter in the issues I read this year. [UPDATE: After the first month of the blog, I have hardly commented on Culture pieces, at least not negatively. There doesn’t seem to be much of point, when they have less of an effect on political culture at McGill. Bad defects in Culture pieces are usually obvious enough so that those Culture contributors would get rejection slips from publications to which they submit material.]
I’ll probably also discuss the news culture that seems evident from these articles, which holds the Daily back. I will have some compliments for Daily articles and writers that don’t show these problems and should set a standard for the rest of the staff to help make the McGill Daily a much better newspaper.
As for the McGill Tribune, eventually I plan to incorporate some critique on their articles, but frankly, I usually don’t have as much to say about pieces in the Tribune, since their style and approach are more generic than the Daily’s, and their gaffes less embarrassing. The McGill Tribune is a more boring read than the Daily, not because the Daily has more stunning journalism but because the Daily shows more stunning examples of communal belief that a piece constitutes satisfactory journalism.
So we’ll see what happens in The McGill Daily … and when the Daily Staff will catch on to the existence this blog.