what a biased report.

I'm glad they talked to students outside of those that work for the Miner when putting together that story.

no doubt they were contacted by the miner trying to draw themselves some attention.

Quite a biased report, and who other than the Miner would approach the news. Plus their reasons in the report were even retarded.

I can make this report a bit less bias. Andrew Careaga, the gentleman in the pink shirt, used to be an advisor for the miner. He resigned that position approxiametly 24 hours after they threatened to sue. Aparrently he is now the director of communications for UMR...

This is why it's hard to find good writers out there. People think intelligence makes up for a lack of effort and research.

Andrew Careaga has been in charge of UMR P.R. for years. He had only been an advisor to The Miner for two, give or take. He advised purely on the technical and organizational aspects of The Miner, since he is really the only staff or faculty member with any real experience in a related field (at least that would be willing to help). He was there for professional input because, believe it or not, The Miner wants to improve.

He probably resigned because of a conflict of interest, but I wasn't around when he made his announcement. That's just an assumption, but a good one.

That being said, I have nothing but good things to say about Andrew Careaga. He didn't have to advise The Miner. He did his best to keep his job and his advisory role separate, but that was too much to ask in this instance. This is exactly why The Miner needs a tenured faculty advisor.

I'd imagine that StuCo members were contacted for this and other stories on this subject (at least if the professional journalists are worth their salt), but like UMR staff, they've been instructed to clam up. That's why you only see one and a half positions (because the university position doesn't really say anything) in the story.

I don't know if The Miner contacted KY3 or not. I wouldn't be suprised either way. But the story has been in the news, and believe it or not, TV journalists read newspapers. Journalists tend to flock to these kinds of stories because of personal interests and, well, who doesn't like a good lawsuit?

Evidently I posted this in the wrong Miner lawsuit thread...

Did the video clip get cut short for anyone else?

Wait... was that an error? In a professional media outlet? Impossible! That must be the first one I've ever seen from a local professional news source! Ever! Maybe this journalism stuff is harder than I thought! Nah. I've been involved in journalism myself and know firsthand how hard it is. It's a piece of cake. All you have to do is write and research well and find all your mistakes before you print while being interesting. See? It can't be that hard. I just described what you have to do in one sentence, so it has to be easy. At least easy enough to do on 25k and with staff with basically no experience.

StuCo Rep: These Miner people must be slackers who don't care about their work. They must sit around and do nothing, collecting a monster paycheck. In fact, I'm so sure of that (given my thorough understanding of the topic), that I will enact policy cutting their funding to 25k. See, unlike professional congressmen (who debate and research and consult experts before enacting legislation), StuCo reps can make important decisions based on 20 minutes of discussion. When we've made decisions while being grossly underinformed, it's not a mistake. We're elected!

Random Guy: I'm so convinced of my opinion that I'm going online and declaring my opinions in red caps! Because I'm a common plebe and when I'm underinformed and make a mistake, no one notices. Citizens and members of a community do not have standards to live up to, so when we make mistakes, a simple "My bad!" clears everything right up.

Okay. Sorry for being snarky. I'm done with that. But I'm pretty sure reasoning by sarcasm is logically sound, at least on internet forums. Don't respond to this. I don't want more flaming, at least none I didn't author.

Well, we might be stoopud noobs, but at least we don't claim our STUPIDITY must be funded by people who don't want to, and then claim our first amendment rights are being violated if those people try to remove their money from our wasteful grasp.

And, here is your problem. You presume to know what StuCo THINKS when they do something. You must be a bad ass reporter, since you wouldn't even need to talk to people to know what they want written.

Or maybe people don't notice when they aren't paying that "plebe" to not be a total FUCK UP! Maybe you should withdraw the money you are paying KY3, that sounds smart... Oh, wait, then you would be violating their first amendment rights, and God knows no one can infringe on the first amendment right of being able to produce SHIT and get paid for it....

i'm still laughing about all the trolling alumni trying to drum up support for the miner. especially because it seems to be having the opposite effect here.

You make this too easy.

You have an assumption in your statement. I do not. I present the facts as they are. Mr. Careaga quit. You are the one taking it that extra step without any support. But what do I know. I am the close minded one.

However you have opened my eyes as to why it is hard to find good righters.

So why should we, the students, pay for poor effort/research.

Okay, SilverRaven83, I'll critique your statements in more detail, ignoring your many spelling and grammatical errors (not so easy, is it?) and concentrating on the statements themselves.

You implied that the report was biased because it left out certain facts about Careaga. The facts you name are (1) Careaga resigned from The Miner shortly after the threat of a lawsuit and (2) he is now Director of Communications. Both facts are true, but their juxtaposition in your statements seems to imply a causality or a sequence of events. Neither of which are true. It would be more accurate to say, "Andrew Careaga, the Director of Communications for UMR, used to advise The Miner, but he resigned from that position after The Miner threatened to sue the university." See the difference?

And you assume that the way they omitted that information was biased. However, it is entirely possible that they didn't think the information was important enough to waste the time (and attention span) of their audience with. Maybe they didn't know about it altogether. Whatever the case, you made an assumption. Claims of bias in this instance are at least a stretch and at most completely unfounded.

--General Bias--
As far as other bias in reporting goes, it is entirely possible that the producers think The Miner screwed up here. However, maybe The Miner gave them more (or more interesting) material to work with, so they got more air time. Maybe they didn't like the ugly exterior shot of Careaga, but I can't imagine any subsequent statements of his would be more enlightening than that summary he gave. That's more the university's fault than his, though.

I don't know why they told the story the way they did (and I don't think it was biased). But you don't either. You say The Miner can't read StuCo's collective mind about why it cut the paper's funds. You can't read the producers' minds about why they aired that piece.

And cite specific examples if I'm wrong, but the reporter pretty much just summed up each side's case. It seemed pretty factual to me.

I could just as easily complain that the newspeople didn't show that The Miner thinks it has legal backing to its claims. Unless you know the cases The Miner references in its argument, it does look pretty stupid to say, "First amendment!" as your main point. I could say the newspeople are in cahoots with the university to make Stryker look like a "tool." But I'm not. If it makes you happy to "OMG BIAS!!1!!1!" this whole story, go right on ahead.

--Regarding the trolling--
And honestly guys, I just wanted a civil discussion, that one snarky post aside. In that instance, I thought that you might understand my points better (and maybe that it would be more entertaining) put that way. I guess I was wrong, but I'm no more of a troll than you are. If you mean I wanted a discussion, then what are forums for? If you mean I wanted to fight, you're mistaken. Don't forget, you all were the ones cursing and bringing in all the ad hominem attacks (if you didn't, thank you). At any rate, I didn't start it all up again in this thread.

I'm just wondering if this is how you all reason with people you respect and care about.

I see you support the actions that the Miner is taking. I can only assume that you are a former EIC.

I have no reason for being against the Miner. I have no vendetta. However, with every pompous and condescending post I read from the Miner squad, my sympathy for their cause slips further and further away. This PR is doing wonders for you guys. Just keep talking down on us common folk from that immortal high bully pulpit you've been spouting out from for so long. This is what happens when you indoctrinate your own believes for so long without an open dialogue for critique and counter-position. I 'm sure that us morons will all just come around eventually and see it your way though... KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! AAA+++++++++