If it isn’t one thing, it’s another.
Not long after Sam Dotters-Katz’s appointment of Athan Papailiou to the ASUO Senate was rejected, the ASUO president made another controversial Senate appointment: C.J. Ciaramella, editor-in-chief of the Oregon Commentator. Though this appointment was also rejected, this time unanimously, its mere occurrence calls into question the integrity of both related parties.
According to its mission statement, the Oregon Commentator was founded by “a group of concerned student journalists,” and has won national recognition for a commitment to journalistic excellence by enabling University students to “hear both sides of issues” for more than 24 years. Those who work at the Commentator, which regularly reports and opines on the goings on of the ASUO, “believe that a code of honor, integrity, pride and rationality are the fundamental characteristics for individual success,” the statement says.
An article in the most recent print issue of the Commentator, titled “ASUO Senate considers being ethical, decides against it,” decries the exclusion of a “code of conduct” outlining senators’ ethical responsibilities at an October Senate meeting.
We’d like to know how the editor-in-chief of a publication that so concerns itself with ethics and student government, and the relationship (or lack thereof) between the two, can “ethically” apply to work for that very student government and still maintain a commitment to journalistic excellence.
Conflict of interest, anyone?
But the Commentator does not claim to be an objective or unbiased journal, some may argue. It is, after all, a place for commentary, and presents itself as such.
True, but if one gave so much as a cursory glance at an issue of the Commentator or its blog, they will undoubtedly find reporting, discussion and criticism of the ASUO and its actions. The most recent issue’s editorial is a prime example.
The Commentator blog has also been recognized nationally; last April it took second in a college competition sponsored by the America’s Future Foundation. One judge appreciated the blog so much he gave the Commentator $1,000 out of his own pocket because the competition only awarded a cash prize to the winner.
In addition, Ciaramella has attended each of the term’s ASUO Senate meetings as a reporter for the Commentator and has spoken out about senators, the organization and its processes. (The term “stakeholder” comes to mind.)
It hardly needs to be stated that reporting of any kind, no matter how inherently slanted, lacks any sort of credibility when the person in charge of its publication is heavily involved in the events and actions with which it is concerned.
In other words, Ciaramella’s decision to run for ASUO candidacy was disingenuous and unprofessional, and makes claims to journalistic integrity seem like nothing more than mockery.
Additionally, the decision to appoint Ciaramella to the Senate jeopardizes the ASUO Executive’s credibility.
Ciaramella’s application letter was indeed, as Sen. Tyler Scandalios described, flippant, and made clear its author’s lack of seriousness about the responsibilities of the Senate.
Whatever one’s opinions about the seriousness and credibility of the ASUO Senate, the fact is that it deals with students’ money and makes decisions that directly affect students, and, therefore, should not be taken so lightly. For Dotters-Katz to appoint Ciaramella when he was the only applicant to not agree to a job interview, was not recommended by the ASUO hiring committee, and treated the entire process like a joke, is irresponsible and disconcerting.
We would like to applaud the group for rejecting Ciaramella’s appointment. Making student government and its coverage in the media into a circus isn’t funny, even if trained bears are.
[email protected]
ASUO, Commentator lacking integrity?
Daily Emerald
February 2, 2009
More to Discover