University of South Carolina Libraries
Front page f analysis criticized... To the Editor: After attending USC for ten months, we have had the opportunity to read The Gamecock and develop our opinion regarding it. While we will admit the college newspaper is not The New York Times, we have been generally pleased with the reporting ability of the staff. Nonetheless, last Monday's issue caused me to reevaluate our opinion. The newspaper's analysis of the President's visit to the USC-Notre Dame football game was nothing more than character assassination. Naturally editorials are allowed and needed in newsoaDers but thev must hp resprvpri tn thp pHitnrinl I page and not be printed as a front page news-story. The article is highly prejudicial making it shoddy journalism. Editorial resnoi It is usually against the Gamecock's policy to respond editorially to letters to the editor. This is to prevent such responses from becoming attempts to merely get in the last word. j An exception must be made in this case. The letter written by Diana Bolander and Bill Howard makes what we consider to be unfounded accusations about the Oct. 21 analysis of President Ford's visit to Columbia. At any rate, an explanation of the purpose of news analysis is in order. To wit: ?THE ARTICLE was not a character assassination Ford's character was not mentioned in the story, nor was anything in the story meant to allude to his character or | his ability to govern. The article analyzed Ford's visit to | Columbia. Period. ?The article was not an editorial. It was not a news story. It was an analysis. There is a difference. An onolircic or* AtlAnf 1 ?? * -" nu uiiuij010 puio an cv tilt llitu put 0|;cvuvc dd It 10 &cci1 by the story's writers. That being the case, such a story naturally contains the writers' opinion. It is impossible for an analysis of any sort to contain no opinion. And that's why The Gamecock was careful to label the story as it did. The word analysis appeared above the story in red, andarcd box separated the story from the nfhorc An tho no rtn TVlic fiTrmrr?<ocrvKirtnl < 4 * vtuviu UII 111V pugb. imo ijrpugi apiutai iicaiiucin SllUUiU I be sufficient notice to the reader that the story is ar analysis, not a straight news account of the event. | NEITHER WAS THE story an editorial. Editorials ar? | the official opinions of the newspaper. Only the writers I opinions are expressed in the analysis. The distinction ii P \ The Gamecock wpimyii We are not surprised that the individual wfro wrote the article did not have a by-line for we would also be ashamed to Dlace our name with the article which, bv the way, was the only article on the front page without a byline. It will be interesting to see how the Carter visit to the Statehouse will be reported. To our knowledge, the former governor is not even coming to the campus; however, we are sure The Gamecock will write a more favorable article for the Democratic nominee. It is about time The Gamecock decided to be an informative newspaper of the university instead of a free campaign propaganda sheet for Jimmy Carter. We are sure there are quite a few students on campus who would like The Gamecock to show Doth sides fairly so an intelligent choice may be nse: analysis mil less clear but more crucial. The analysis was not slanted Kl ? f A/lviAMn 4/V ?- ?> * A. 1 -?Al tjy mc cuiwia iu icucvi txiiiui icti upiiuuu iuwuru euner candidate. The Gamecock has no unified opinion among members of its editorial staff as to a favorite candidate for president. The analysis was directed toward the visit of the President as seen by its writers. That's all. The analysis was not slanted hv fhp aiiiinrc fn ** J V?V VU1?V1 *J \t\Jf A VxJL lV/V/t editorial opinion toward either candidate. The Gamecock has no unified opinion among members of its editorial staff as to a favorite candidate for president. ?As regards the omission of a byline on the story, the I byline was replaced by "from staff reports" because i three persons contributed to its composition. Each of these persons has a different title, and to remain consistant with The Gamecock's byline style, this would have j required a byline six lines deep. The byline was changed ' as a matter of convenience. For the record, Editor George ? Morris, Graduate Assistant Marguerite Ryan and former 3?^jfk i iCTCy/ vT^PmiML^^ ^U^?K|Jaft^(A ^HMnHMMai tending 4 - " *.? ???t?-* ' a- , <?*;",.'/* ... . ,, ,.. ..y ....? > , r,..^. <v n...by student > eunnAi^Are of Ford made by the student body on November 2. The newspaper has not only failed in its duty but has also insulted the Office of the President of the United States. We hope that in the next four years the staff will develop to the point where thfi newsnanpr will nnt nnlv ho nhlo to oonont ?*e f , v *? uv-vv|" ,UJ responsibility but will also learn respect for the highest office in the government in the United States. Un fortunately, The Gamecock appears to have a long way to go before it can mature to such a level. DIANA G. BOLANDER - BILL HOWARD EDITOR'S NOTE: The authors are members of I ISC f Youth for Ford. {understood Editor Bill Pratt wrote the story. Morris wrote the lead paragraphs, while Pratt wrote the body of the story with Ryan's contributions. Today's analysis of Jimmy Carter's visit was written by Morris, Pratt and News Editor Mickey Trimarchi. ? ' ?THE GAMECOCK HAS in no way been a "free campaign propoganda sheet for Jimmy Carter." The Gamecock has printed only a few news articles about the presidential campaign. Those articles covered members of the candidates' families campaigning in town. The only Carter nosition The Gamecock has sunnorted editnriallv was for national health care insurance. The editorial cartoonist, Jim Mazzotta, is given editorial freedom to express his opinion with his cartoons. His opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Gamecock editors. > ?The article does not, in our opinion, insult the office of the president. The article analyzed Ford's visit in Columbia from the reporters' perspective, i.e., that Ford spending about four hours in Columbia out of a long I A 4.1 LI- A A. J t 1 campaign was nui me uig news evern porirayea t>y some. While one may disagree with the perspective, it cannot be reasonably argued that the perspective is an insult to the office of the president. It does not bother us that disagreement exists concerning the perspective taken in the Ford analysis. That's fine. But to suggest that the newspaper is slanted against I Ford or that an analysis clearly labeled as such is "shoddy journalism" is absolutely wrong. GWM J N ftl*6 *? iha /k?* nnllimnr !> - 11 _ . * J l,? >1 ?v?uv vuitui vi vuiuiiinn si^ncu uy lUUlVlUUHIS i opinions of those authors and do riot represent the >n of The Gamecock. , > George Morri* Editor Trlmarchl Billy Saker HWlfor , Bob Kino " Sport* Editor Ad Manager ne Thrift jws Editor AlyceKozma Mitch Sherwood Copy Desk Chief Sally Wilson Gaillerd - Asst. Sports Editor* 9 Editor Marguerite Hyan Whitaker Graduate Assistant Chuck Cromer Page Editor Entertainment Editor t 1ICOCK welcomes letters ft im its rtaders. Letters should he limited to a single ?d a maximum of 300 \*ord* They must be signed with the writer's true name. ms er other aliases will not .?e used, but the writer's name will be withheld if inces warrant, ro assist ut in verifying he identity of writers, please include your tfdress and a telephone lumber where you can be reached Please include class ?nd mefor'aiso We res? /e tr aright to edit all letters, not tor content, but to meet i limitations Address Ca- <pus Opinion "'he Gamecock, Orawer A, USC, , S C. mot. _ ' : / i W-vr SxH-i* .X* r 'tv ,~9 * ? :V-? (