Carolinian

Issue date: 10/2/07 Section: Opinions

They call it an "F-bomb" for a reason. When you drop it in some situations, it will create a reaction. The bigger the bomb, naturally, the bigger the boom.

National headlines were recently made when the Colorado University student newspaper, The Rocky Mountain Collegian, ran a four-word editorial complete with four-letter expletive: "Taser this: F--- Bush." That particular expletive appeared uncensored at the top of a page in huge, bold font. Needless to say, it stuck out.

In a college paper there are times you can defend using "adult language." The reason we're deciding to weigh in on the issue is that it's not entirely uncommon for readers to see an F-bomb dropped in the pages you see before you now. We are, after all, printing our paper for adults. However, the decision to include those words has to be defensible just like every decision, and that means anything from running an article to hiring or firing a writer to changing the color of your skybox.

When talking about the Colorado editorial many people have invoked the '60s Supreme Court case Cohen v. California, which defended under the auspices of free speech a man arrested for being in public with the phrase "F--- the Draft" on the back of his jacket. The important difference between that case and the Colorado editorial is that the back of a jacket is only so big. With a newspaper you have ample space to expound an idea, and you would have to come up with a pretty good reason not to include a few hundred words explaining your opinion. The problem with that four-word editorial is there isn't a reason; the problem with the Collegian editorial board is that they knew that.

We know they knew that because instead of just letting their self-proclaimed "bold statement" stand on its own merit the editorial board ran an explanation of the short statement in their very next printing. The many words of it, sadly, reveal all the more what their absence told in the previous issue:


"We've written several opinion pieces bashing the president, and all of those fell on deaf, apathetic ears - a disappointing truth on the CSU campus. It's interesting and scary that the use of the F-word garners more attention than an intelligent, well-researched editorial. Yes, we could have used our usual 250 words to discuss the same topic, but who would have read it? And who would have spoken out against it or in favor of it? Who would have talked about it at all?"


It's actually not interesting or scary. Your favorite professor armed with a doctorate in the subject he's discussing in detail can enthrall you to no end, but if someone runs through the classroom naked and yelling then people are going to turn their heads. Attention-grabbing does not mean substantive, important, or worthwhile.

The board's admission that their frustration with the lack of reader attention to their words motivated the four-word piece shows the most immature level of reasoning. Their skills in writing before didn't garner the desired response, so why not simply print an expletive in huge font? Only children scream when they don't get what they want.

That same day the newspaper's editor-in-chief printed a statement repeating his defense, which consists mostly of the fact that neither the university nor the newspaper's advisors can control the editorial decisions. While this is true, it is obviously not a defense to anything. Not many people are arguing against the newspaper's First Amendment right to write what they did. Most people are just asking why, and that is the question to which the Collegian board has no real answer.

Imagine if instead of nailing his 95 Theses to a Catholic Church door Martin Luther had instead put up a sign saying "F--- the Pope." Imagine if instead of carefully delivering the words of his immortal "I Have a Dream" speech MLK Jr. instead shouted "F--- racism!" Imagine how the world would be different if rather than crafting their ideas into something substantive and letting their thoughts propel themselves on their own truth and value through the minds of others, they instead blundered their opportunity.

Now, we're not saying that anything from a college paper Opinions page is going to spur the Protestant Reformation. But you see the point. If you're not printing something of substance, then why are you printing it? If it's something you're going to have to follow up with an explanation, why not just print the explanation? What the board meant was a column about First Amendment rights and student apathy; what they printed was an attention-hungry antic.

Seeing the difference between a situation when something is defensible and when it isn't is what you call editorial judgment. Often we're asked what goes through the minds of the The Carolinian editorial board members when we decide to include material that some may question: colorful language, sex columns, potentially offensive humor, or … well, just check our archives, you'll probably find something. We know; we read (and print) your letters.

How do we defend such decisions? By making sure we can answer all the questions we know readers are going to ask, and rightfully so, before they're asked. If we can't, we don't print it. It's that simple, and every single decision gets the same consideration.

We have to put those answers above our own personal wants, whatever they may be, because in the end it's not about us. It's about defending the newspaper that was around long before us and, assuming we don't screw up too badly, will continue long into the future. It's about not losing the trust of our readers. It's about valuing the freedoms that allow us to do what we do by not hiding behind them when we make a bad decision. It's about a long list of things that are bigger and more important than us.

Don't think we take that lightly. Our comrades in Colorado, though, we think they lost sight of that long ago.