I am writing in response to the March 5th Record editorial criticizing College Council (CC) co-presidents Joe Masters and Sarah Barger for not asking the “tough” questions in the CC presidential debate. I’m dismayed that the Record is so eager to point out others’ “errors” when it has done no better. During the two weeks of campaigning, the Record failed to print the candidates’ platforms, and to cover the Minority Coalition debate. In fact, it printed only three articles pertaining to the election, and only one of those, the coverage of the CC debate, attempted to address any substantial campaign issues. As the editorial pointed out, the debate was not particularly provocative, meaning that the Record failed to effectively cover the most meaningful aspects of the campaign that might have informed voters in the election.
A generous reader might argue that the campaign itself lacked substance. In this case, the editorial should neither have criticized the moderators, nor recommended a change in the debate format. Instead, it should have primarily encouraged the candidates to focus on the important issues.
Last week’s editorial demonstrates that the Record is outdoing itself to criticize College Council, even to its own detriment. If coverage continues to be as shoddy as these past few weeks, I am doubtful that the Record is prepared to moderate a debate on issues important to the campus, as it proposes.
Jonathan Pahl ’03
College Council Treasurer