Headline following primaries was biased
Last night, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was revived from almost certain death with a decisive victory in Ohio and a less decisive, but more surprising, victory in Texas. Clinton supporters across the nation feel as though their candidate has been given a second chance at life.
Before these primaries, Bill Clinton (perhaps ill-advisedly) made clear that without these wins, his wife’s campaign would be over. The Clinton campaign itself, which for the past few weeks has been a desperate machine alternating attacks with mild-mannered concession speeches, seems to feel new vitality, as well it should.
National newspapers are, of course, eager to report on the importance of Hillary’s March 4 wins. The New York Times’ headline reads: “Big Wins for Clinton in Texas and Ohio.” The Washington Post announces: “Clinton Beats Obama in Texas and Ohio.” The Los Angeles Times is the most effusive: a beaming Hillary Clinton beneath the headline “Ohio, Texas wins boost Clinton.”
Then there is the Daily Bruin’s headline: “Obama Maintains Lead,” (March 5).
The subhead: “Illinois senator still on top despite Clinton’s three wins.”
This is, quite simply, bad journalism. While it is true that Obama has maintained a lead in delegate count, that is the sort of thing one would mention about four or five paragraphs into the story. It is certainly not the big news of the day.
If the author wishes to convince his readers that Clinton’s wins were not particularly influential, then he should do so in an opinion piece. If he wants to engage in spin, he should join the Obama campaign.
The lead article on the front page of a campus paper is not the place for such laughably biased reporting. While bias in the media is no more unusual than its coming-of-age cousin, shoddy journalism in a college paper, it is your job as editors to ensure that your paper ““ above all your lead headline about a story of considerable national importance ““ makes at least a nominal effort toward impartiality.
Karen Sosa
UCLA School of Law student
Bruin Republicans’ definition of political correctness outdated
In the article “Week explores “˜correct’ effects,” (March 4) I can see that the Bruin Republicans bring up some interesting points through “Political Correctness Week,” and I applaud their attempts to encourage discourse. However, there is a fundamental problem with their concept of Political Correctness Week.
The problem is that their definition of political correctness is a relic from the Clinton Administration. Political correctness changes with each administration. In all cases it serves to define the politically acceptable position on issues on the public agenda. During the Clinton years, that agenda involved issues of integration and opportunity.
However, during the Bush Administration, we have shifted to issues of terrorism, national security and “rogue states” as principle concerns. Along with those important topics comes a “politically correct” position on each.
This “tyranny of the majority” is not new. It is a fact of life in a democracy that one of the negative side effects is the stifling of opposing views.
How many people would feel comfortable expressing support for Hugo Chavez in mixed company these days?
My guess is not many. Even those who might be tempted to make a case for the Venezuelan leader would be careful in voicing their opinions since it conflicts with official politics of the current administration, and provokes negative responses from most citizens ““ even if they are uninformed of the issues involved.
So while I appreciate a vibrant debate and agree with my classmates that attempts to be politically correct can stifle a full discussion of issues, I feel that their notions of what it means to be politically correct are stuck in the mid ’90s and should be updated to reflect the current political mood and ideals of the day.
Jonathan Tobin
Third-year, global studies
Themed floors allow for personal growth
Entering UCLA, I would have loved an African-diaspora floor when I lived in the dorms.
I do not regret my experience at all during my dorming days; I had a great time and made all types of friends of all types of colors, except black because I was the only black person on my floor.
Having a themed floor would have made my transition to UCLA a little easier and a little bit more comfortable. An African-diaspora-themed floor could have built a better and stronger African American community on campus.
In response to remarks that themed floors would cater to “white students,” if there were a European American-themed floor, I would welcome one with open arms.
Personally, I feel it is important for all Americans to return to their roots, explore their heritage and learn about their ancestors and where they came from.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to immerse yourself in your roots. Accept it, embrace it. It is a part of you and it makes you who you are.
Osa Omoruyi
Fourth-year, neuroscience