This archived article was written by: Kellie Henderson
It never ceases to amaze me how much flack our little staff has received over this year’s edition of The Eagle. Despite criticism from the Propaganda Rag and our editor-in-chief sporting a marijuana sweatshirt in his newspaper photo, last year’s paper was largely ignored by students and staff alike. This year, without fail, each and every issue has inspired some sort of drama on campus. Let’s take a look at the uproar that has made us laugh, get angry, cringe and most of all, kept us entertained this past semester.
In attempt to create more student appeal for the newspaper, we put three crime stories front and center on the first issue (our other options were the uneventful merger talks and the college’s 70th anniversary celebration). Staff and faculty complained that it “made the college look bad” and was “old news.”
Problems with the technical equipment in the newspaper room have been ongoing and troublesome, but after servers went down for several hours, forcing the writers, editors, and layout staff to stay past 5 a.m. two nights in a row, we were tired of the problem. Susan Polster, journalism advisor, was repeatedly ignored when requesting repairs and decided to take a final stand; no newspapers would be published until our equipment was up and running. After a few heated e-mail exchanges between staff and administration, it took three IT guys (including the chief information officer) and the better part of a week to fix our server, machines and wiring. The technical department didn’t take this criticism lying down, however, and shut down our website for two weeks.
The Board of Regents arrived at CEU on the morning of Sept. 5 to a JLSC completely void of newspapers. Why? They were taken, thrown away, eaten – well, we’re not really sure. It seems pretty fishy, though, that 150 papers were in their respective slots the night before, and then mysteriously disappeared the next morning, right before the prestigious Regents arrived. Our best guess is that someone up top didn’t want the Board to see read about our “campus crimes” but who knows, maybe we jut have a lot of readers. To vent our outrage, we posted an editorial about the issue.
When you arrived at school this past fall, you might have noticed the Gallery East sign still advertising Emilie Dunn’s wedding in July. Well, we noticed it too, and posted a picture of the archaic sign, wondering whether it would ever be updated. A dean disliked this photo and cutline, arguing that it was misleading people to think the Gallery was closing. Not quite our words, but you know.
Despite our rebuke of the actions taken against The Eagle, more papers mysteriously disappeared at the 70th Anniversary Dinner in the JLSC on Sept. 13.
Now, The Eagle is not perfect, and sometimes we need to catch a little flack to keep us in line. Two articles, about the budget cuts and Mike King’s interim president position, contained information and wording that was not liked, warranting some complaints after publication. Our bad.
On the other hand, sometimes our readers are just plain unhappy with our publication. One reader complained about one of our cartoons that poked fun at a touchy subject- suicide. The cartoon showed a student threatening to commit suicide, but delayed it because CEU is “not equipped” to deal with it. Supposedly, this could cause suicidal students to think we couldn’t handle their problems. Hmmmm.
Another reader complained about our photo of a GEAR UP Open House asking, “Is this the best picture you can take?” In this person’s opinion, there were too many backs of heads.
After we published an article that jokingly reprimanded a few CEUSA members for chanting at the end of a play, student government seemed a little shaken up. A meeting was called about the paper where one CEUSA member felt personally attacked because the article also criticized student government’s “inability” to plan anything but stomps.
This time I got some special attention. My article about the smell in the JLSC building elicited some frustrated e-mails from administration. One claimed that the smell was “not as bad as some are claiming,” and that it was unprofessional to quote an anonymous source because he or she has no credentials to determine the smell as sewage (though I think having a nose is good enough for me). Ironically, the source chose to remain anonymous to avoid harassment for speaking out on the issue. I guess that was a smart move, considering the aftermath.
Also, one faculty member complained about having another faculty member’s name in the same article as hers.
In the end, despite our jostling and occasional jab the college or its policies, buildings, personnel, etc, we do love this place. We just have different opinions on how to make it better. But keep sending the complaints because, let’s face it, we’re a small town paper and sometimes we need a good laugh … and it’s always nice to know we have readers.