Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

If you want to see the end result of a "society" with total censure ship, join the Army.
 

ER, I am confused.

The Censorship that the First Ammendment protects us from is GOVERNMENT censorship, isn't it?

Private Entities like the Administration of OSU (Who would be held responsible for the content of the O'Collegian) have, and should have, control over the publications that they oversee, don't they?

Shouldn't they?

If Bird was using your money and authoruty to publish a Right Wing Newspaper in your name, wouldn't you want to have editorial control over it's content?

When I read the story that spawned this whole tyrade, I do not remember seeing where the Federal Government or the Bush Administration did anything whatsoever to censor the O'Collegian, in any way.

What are you all worked up about?
 

1. Oklahoma State University is *not* a private institution. It is a government university. Holy crap. You do know that all those universities with "state" in their names have "state" in their names because they are owned and operated by STATES don't you?

2. The O'Collegian is a separately incorporated entity that operates from advertising like any other damn newspaper. Read the stories. Follow the links. *That's* what has me pissed more than anything: The stupid flack didn't even know that the damn newspaper is NOT under the control of the university ON PURPOSE -- for just such bullshit as this.

And don't make this a left-right deal, Tug. It's not. Its a free press deal, all the way.

Sometimes the students that run the paper are more conservative, sometimes they're more liberal. The paper is more conservative, I think, than it was when I worked on it.

But that's Not. The. Point.
 

ER, I agree it's bullshit. The beautiful thing about having a President speak at commencement is that folks can protest against his policies. At OSU, there's always been a tension between the "administration" and the O'Colly and this is just that tension playing out. Ultimately, I'd love to see the paper sue ... because they'd win. Maybe someone from the OU Law School will take the case?
 

No censorhsip took place. No harm, no fouls. But the flack should be fired for the desire, the feeble attempt and for being an idiot.
 

Thanks, Nick.

ER, wasn't it you who lamented the fact that OSU has a CEO in the first place?

That would imply that it is a Corporate entity rather than a Government Instsiution.

And from what I have gathered from following the links and reading the articles, it seems to me that the Administration at OSU simply wanted the O'Collegian to not report rumors before President Bush coming to speak was set in stone.

That's not Censorship, it's Vetting your Information.

When the White House announced that the President was definately coming to speak, then the O'Collegian was free to report it all they wanted.

There's nothing wrong with that. Freedom of Speech or no.

And while we are on that subject, Vetting of facts before stories go to press (or to Air, as the case may be...) has become a problem in all forms of Media lately.

Maybe if The Press were more careful than they have been lately about what they report as fact, and hadn't taken quite as much "license" with their freedom of speech, then we might not have to be as worried about "Censorship" as we have to be now...
 

Not that I support Censorship in any form...

I just find it interesting that the Media loves the concept of "Checks and Balances" except when it comes to them...
 

Tug, that is EXACTLY why I LOATHE the idea that any universwity would have a CEO. It's ludicrous. Private corporation shave CEOsl PUBLIC universities should not.

And the press should have the LEAST checks on it because it IS, in most cases, the ONLY balance against the government.

As much as you want to think I'm an extremist, this is the only case where I truly AM.

People first. Then the press. Then the governnment. Thiose who happen to hold the reins of power and bureaucracy of any government:

Dead. Ass. Last.

Mick: Some of your details are off. The state of Oklahoma, in the form of Oklahoma State University, allowed the creation of the newspaper as a separate entity specifically to keep this kind of thing from happening.

The state has NO business telling this, or any student paper so established, ANYTHING about content.

If it wants to take away its physical space on campus, fine. If it wants to denounce it, fine. If it wants to find some way to LEGALY -- that is, under the First Amendment -- hold writers and editors accouintable in some for what they write and edit, fine.

But, NO prior retraint.
 

Solly! ):-
 

In a free society, there are NO checks and balances on a free press.

And as a point of information, comparing any effort to censor a newspaper to FCC regulation is wrong. FCC regulates the public airwaves, because the airwaves belong to all. That is ENTIRELY different from a private newspaper, like the O'Colly and every other state university newspaper set up with an independent publications board.

Student journalists enjoy every one of the freedoms that any other journalist enjoys -- and which the American public should be ready and willing to defend fully.

These idiotic attempts to censor come up perhaps once a generation. When it happened to me, it was the Iranian Student Association at OU that was attempting to censor my stories. The fact that this OSU case happened at the hands of a university flack doesn't make it any easier to swallow -- and it should not.
 

Even if they plan to print rumors and gossip?

Nobody can even ask them to WAIT a while before printing a story, just to ty to make sure that the story is true?

Sure, the Press should have the LEAST amount of checks on them.

But should they have absolutely no checks at all?

Not even a responsibility to make sure what they print is true and certain?
 

TRY, that is...
 

Re, "But should they have absolutely no checks at all?

Not even a responsibility to make sure what they print is true and certain?"

NONE. EVER. EFFING EVER.

Se the Weekly World News, dude. People respedct it for what it is, because of what it prints. It's a piece of crap, and everybidy knows it. The publishers are happy, the peopel who buy it are haoppy -- ahnd the First Amendment reigns.

NONE. EVER.

The press is free to print outright lies. Libel laws are ijn palce to make them pay for damage to reputations. Public officials have the least protection ON PURPOSE, when they speak or act in their public capicity.

But neither is that what the issue is here.
 

No prior restraint. PERIOD. NONE. There are consequences in place for libel. And the question raised was not about ACCURACY. There was no question about the truth about Bush's invitation to speak. In fact, the truth of the matter is exactly why the flack wanted to squelch the story!

Just like other journalists, student journalists would be subject to consequences after the matter -- NOT BEFORE! An editor would have every right to fire a reporter who operated outside of the standards of the newspaper. Add to that the academic consequences, such as failure of a lab, and you can see the additional pressures incumbant on a student journalist to adhere to ethics and truth.

NO PRIOR RESTRAINT. EVER.
 

Are you saying that the Weekly World News should be the standard for Journalistic Excellence?

That the New York Times should be no more accountable to the truth than the National Inquirer?

That Brian Williams is Katie Couric is David Letterman is Rush Limbaugh is Geraldo Rivera is Jerry Springer is Howard Stern?

If that is the case, ER, then why should ANYONE believe ANYTHING that ANYONE in the Media says?

Where is truth to be found?

How can we trust ANY of you?
 

You trust those who have a trustworthy reputation. You listen to multiple sources of information, read multiple publications. Journalists live and die by their professional reputations. Those that operate ethically behave ethically. They tell the truth, no matter what. The public learns which are honest and which are not. Publications also live and die by their reputations, and the good ones will weed out bad reporters and editors. Really good ones will tell their readers/viewers when the truth has been disregarded and will publicly deal with that issue.
 

Which I do.

Every day.

I am just surprised that what is obviously truth, as I see it, differs so much from what those who are in the Information Manipulation Business regard to be "Truth", when we are all supposedly looking at the same information.

Over the last two years, I have seen a "Reputable" Newscaster report forged documents as truth, and when found out, the Newscaster in question stated that even though his evidence was bunk, he still insisted that the story was true.

I have seen the Main Stream Media report that the President lied about pre-war intelligence, but every day more and more information is being revealed that the President was right, but the Media ignores this developement.

I hear reports that we are failing in Iraq, and that the Country is decending into Civil War, but they are not. Have not. Will not.

I hear reports that retired Generals say that Sec. Rumsfeld is a failure, even though we have accomplished more with less casualties in this
War than in any Military Conflict in Human History.

I believe that when Journalists will not hold themselves to a standard of reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then checks and balances should be imposed upon them.

If you are reporting your opinion, tell me so up front, and I will have no problem with you.

Don't claim to be impartial, and hide behind the First Amendment, and feed me propaganda.

If that is your plan, then you deserve to be regulated.
 

Just my opinion...
 

Oklahoma State University is not a corporation, it is a State regulated Insitution of Higher Education, created in article 13a of the Oklahoma Constitution.
I looked up the O'Colly's On-Line PDF version and looked for its Mast to ascertain its legal status.
I didn't see one. I was under the impression that all incorporated newspapers in Oklahoma were required to have a Mast that gave information about its ownership and corporate control. So where is it that says that this newspaper is an independent entity separate from the University at which it is located? Is it fish or foul or chicken of the sea?
 

What the FUCK, Tugboat! We're talking about a specific example of an attempt at censorship. Your perceptions about "truth" have little to do with this discussion. We're talking about a particular flack who was trying to suppress a TRUE report for his own reasons. He wasn't saying the student journalists were lying. In fact, he did not want the truth told!

If you are advocating a regulated press, I pity you. You would not know freedom if the press could not report independently. What an outrageous, ignorant stance.

And let me ask you this: You claim you "hear reports" about this or that being false. Where are you "hearing" these? From a regulated press? I don't think so! Do you want those voices stilled as well? What a slippery slope you tread.
 

From the paper's web site:
About The Daily O'Collegian:

The Daily O'Collegian derives about 86 percent of its revenue from advertising sales, 13 percent from subscription and circulation sales and 1 percent from other sources.

The Daily O'Collegian is a student-operated newspaper and most of the staff are journalism majors.

The views offered by staff members are not necessarily those of the university administration or Oklahoma A&M Board of Regents.

Columns are the opinion of the author. Columns and letters to the editor do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board or The Daily O'Collegian.

Errors of fact reported to the editor will be corrected promptly.

The Daily O'Collegian is a member of The Associated Press, Oklahoma Press Association, Associated College Press, College Newspaper Business and Advertising Managers Inc. and College Media Advisers.
 

Trixie, this discussion has grown beyond the specific example that started it.

Has the fact that the President is coming to speak at OSU appeared in the pages of the O'Colly?

If it has, then nobody and nothing has been censored.

And no, I do not advocate a regulated Press.

I advocate Truth in Reporting.

Freedom of Speech is an Awesome Responsibility, and I don't believe that modern Journalists take it seriously enough.

I am tired of having to get my news fron nineteen different sources, and having to piece together the Truth from the fragments that slip through the propaganda.

Stop trying to indoctrinate me, just tell me what happened.
 

That nice, and I saw that, but that is not a Mast ...who controls it?
Does it have a corporate structure?
Does it have a board?(not an editorial board, but a corporate board)
Who is responsible for it?
Who controls the money?
Whom do you sue when you sue the paper.
Who hires and fires the staff?
Who holds the money the newspaper makes?
Who writes the checks?
Who owns the physical property of the newspaper? The presses, the computers, the desk etc.?
What does the University catalog mean when it refers to the newspaper as a "lab"?
In short who owns, operates, and has final control over the newspaper?
 

And the next question is:
Who is the boss?
And the next:
Is it censureship when the boss say don't print it?
 

Tug, then you arre a fascist: "I believe that when Journalists will not hold themselves to a standard of reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then checks and balances should be imposed upon them."

And if you're "tired" of the work it takes to gather information and make decisions for yourself, move to another country. Dictatorships are easy.

Damn straight I'm extreme.

And Nick, by arrangement, OSU "allows," I guess, the O'Collegian space on campus. If OSU wants to kick it off, fine. If OSU wants to quit providing electricity, do it. If OSU wants to disclaim any relationship, other than the above -- and it SHOULD, in my opinion -- fine.

But what the flack did was an *attempt* at government censorship. Textbook definition. Didn't happen. Outrage is still justified.

Drlobojo, no, no and hell no, it is NOT "censorship" -- not government censorship, which is the only kind of censorship there is in my book -- for an editor, or a publisher, to decide what goes in or stays out of a publication.

When I worked at this paper, reporters, answered to editors who answered to *the* editor, who got advice from the adviser, who was hired by the university just for that purpiose -- hence, it's a lab. Advice, not direction.

Reporters were paid 50 cents an inch for copy, and editors were paid tiny stipends per semester,from that list of resources posted above.

When I was editor of the thing, the "publisher," and I mean the person whose job it was to run the business end of the place, got in the face of my opinion page editor about something she had written, and I got in his face right back and told him to go to hell*, it wasn't any of his damn business -- and after we both yelled and hollered, and he pulled the old "you're a kid (I was 23, I think) and don't know any better" bullshit, and I answered with the usual "you're bought and paid for" retort, he backed down because he knew that under the setup of the paper, I was right and he was wrong to mess with *my* staff.

And Nick, one more thing: It for damn sure IS the exact same thing as BushCo pressuring the NYT not to publish those photos. The exact thing. OSU minions: Kick the O'Collegian off campus or leave it the hell alone. Note that it was a minion, a sorry flack (I repeat myself) who dared this; his bosses knew better, or so they said publicly.

(*Not reflective of ER's thoughts on the publisher's immportal soul.)
 

BTW, Tug's called *me* a "socialist" a few times. Turnabout is fair, extreme play
 

Who is the boss?
Who owns the paper.
Where is its Oklahoma corporate charter?
Why is it so hard to know these things?
Would it be hard to find the same thing out for the Edmond Sun for example?
Passion is always suspect. You guys (and I love you all) are having a lot of passion over this.
What I want to know is it based in fact or feeling.
If the Govenor did this I would know that would be censureship, but if the A&M board is the board of the newspaper then that is another case.
 

Drlobojo, you know that you can find that information in the annual publisher's statement. It would not necessarily be published in the daily mast of the paper. E.R. has done a good job of explaining it. The "publisher" is the publications board, which hires the editor. The editor hires the staff. The pool of employees comes (primarily) from journalism lab students.

One difference I note between E.R.'s experience at OSU and mine at OU is that his reporters were paid by the inch. I was paid a stipend of $3 per DAY when I started as a freshman. By the time I graduated I was all the way up to $8 a day. Roughly what I make these days... (only a small exaggeration.)

And I guaran-damn-tee you there was no "playing journalism" to it.
 

"So who's on third...."
So taking ER's statments and extrapolating. The newspaper belongs to the university (OSU). OSU is run by a president/CEO that is an employee of and that reports to and serves at the pleasure of the A&M Board of Regents. Ipso facto, the newspaper is the property of the A&M Board of Regents and they therefore are the ultimate Boss of the newspaper. So if their minion the Pres/CEO says don't publish then you don't publish?
 

ER has already indicated that to be the case. But there seems to be some passionate grey area regarding a college newspaper that would keep the administation appoint the the board that owns the paper from doing the same thing.
 

....appointed by the board that.....
 

That's not censorship, though. It's an editorial decision. He's the editor of the newspaper, not an administrator trying to control the newspaper. Anon, off base.
 

Teditor's comment now refers to a comment that I deleted to protect my anonymity.
 

But Teditor if the "owner" of the newpaper sent word down stream not to publish it wouldn't happen either. In Oklahoma, the Governing Board, the A&M Board, is the owner of everything at the University. So what's this myth that the newspaper in a free and independent entity?
 

I just called someone in a posititon to know: There is an O'Collegian Publishing Co., or, perhaps Oklahoma Collegian Publishing Co., formed in 1926.

They apparently can't find the charter. I may go to the Secretary of State's office myself to see if there is one on file.
 

Yep, I would really like to know how it is incorporated.
However the A&M board is running a full fledge institution at Okmulgee, Oklahoma that was never actually created by law, so damn near anything is possible with these guys.
 

Re, "So what's this myth that the newspaper in a free and independent entity?"

I think -- but cannot yet demonstrate -- that the corporate charter says that the A&M regents GAVE AWAY their proprietary interest in the newspasper. In other words, the A&M regents freed the paper itself.
 

Then who "owns" it?
 

O'Collegian Publishing Co.?

I think it also speels out that the president of the university is a member of the board of directors of the publishign company, which may very well be the source of the gray.
 

Went looking in th Law Data bases and came up with this:

http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=932

Morency's attorney, Stephen Jones, said he will challenge the student newspaper's standing to file the motion to make the documents public. Jones said there was no basis for the Daily O'Collegian to sue to have the court documents unsealed because Morency's case against the university was already dismissed. Furthermore, Jones said, the newspaper does not have standing to challenge an agreement reached by Morency and the university to keep the records sealed.

"The O'Colly is part of Oklahoma State University. It's funded in substantial part by mandatory student fees," Jones said. "So our position is that the O'Colly is estopped from seeking the relief since ... OSU already agreed to the sealing. The O'Colly can't undercut what its parent organization has done."

However, a New York court ruled in December that an independent student newspaper was not an arm of the university and could not be bound by agreements entered into by the school. (See NYU paper not barred from printing sexual assault victims' names, court rules.)

Daily O'Collegian Editor in Chief Jared Janes said he is confident Jones' argument will not hold up in court. The newspaper was incorporated as an independent business in 1926 and is financially independent from the university, Janes said.

Morency's attorney said he would also challenge the redactions that were agreed upon by Nelon, counsel for the university and counsel for the alleged sexual assault victim, saying that if the records are released, they should be released in their entirety..........


I haven't found what happened next. So again, is it fish or fowl or chicken of the sea.
 

Working on it.

But this is bullshit: "The O'Colly is ... funded in substantial part by mandatory student fees," Jones said.

It's just untrue. I'm surprised that Jones would be so wrong about something. Or, maybe I'm not.
 

This thread continues on the next post.