|
|
| An Open Letter to ASPSU |
![]() Dear ASPSU, The phrase “good government” gets thrown around often in political discourse. While there is no textbook definition, most people would agree that a degree of transparency is fundamental. Transparency is essential to government’s ability to represent the electorate’s will. This becomes impossible when government refuses to work with the media. The Rearguard brings this up because PSU’s government has allegedly refused to cooperate with the Spectator, and if our suspicions are correct, the Rearguard as well. The Spectator, in the tradition of investigative journalism, has been running a series of articles called “What Have You Done for Me Lately, ASPSU?” The series echo a piece run by The Rearguard in years past called “The ASPSU Checklist,” which may warrant a return to our hallowed pages this year. Such articles serve to keep ASPSU, and promises made by candidates when they run for the highest paid and most powerful student office on campus, in check. Conflict between ASPSU and the Spectator was allegedly born from a piece in the Spectator's November 2009 issue, which reported on President Sanford's push for shared governance with University President Wim Wiewel. The Spectator remarked that such actions, so early in the year, were troubling. “The implications are that Sanford would essentially have to follow Wiewel around at every public appearance,” the editors of the Spectator said in their article. “If true, this may be a strategic mistake to be so confrontational this early in the year… in this case, collaboration would probably yield the best results for students and the long term prospects for the school.” The same piece referred to Sanford's behavior, which has, at times, been rather unbecoming for a student body president, such as his habit (as the Spectator described it) of putting his feet up on his desk and enthusiastically describing his high level of university administrative access. Sanford is quoted as attributing this behavior to his Scottish ancestry. In classic satirical form, the Spectator suggested that other public behavior of his, such as swearing, may be derived from his Scottish ancestry as well. Sources that wish to remain anonymous (due to fear of retaliation) have reported that Sanford responded with an appearance at the Spectator office, banging a copy of the November issue in his hand, and demanding to see Editor Joe Wirtheim. Next, Sanford allegedly took steps to file a complaint with the university publications board, citing hate speech. We doubt that Sanford missed the satirical nature of the comment made in the Spectator article, and suspect that he is instead retaliating against criticism. For the Spectator's part, they have remained impressively diplomatic, publicly stating only that information from ASPSU is still forthcoming. “I will say that, as an editorial publication it's our job to ask questions, and offer informed commentary on policy makers' work,” Wirtheim said. “We do this on behalf of our readers who expect us to engage in the diverse marketplace of ideas. We understand that not everyone will agree with our comments, but that's the point of our work: to offer fresh perspectives.” The heart of the issue is this: the role of media is to serve as a check against government. This generally entails reporting on what government is doing. The role of the media is in no way to be the friend of the power elite. When government engages in activities that potentially oppose the best interest of the electorate, it is the duty of the media to report, regardless of how it might ruffle the feathers of those in power. What Sanford is being charged with is akin to President Obama refusal to deal with Fox News – he has barred access to a media outlet because of the ideological content of the reporting, or because the reporting contradicts the message of the government. This recalls Nixon's adversarial treatment of the press, which we at the Rearguard are pretty sure neither Presidents Obama nor Sanford wishes to imitate. The Rearguard invites President Sanford, or any other involved figure, to respond to the allegations made by submitting a letter to the editor. Hostility between the ASPSU and media outlets not only prevents the media from doing its job, but also allows ASPSU and other governing bodies to operate in a shroud of secrecy that flies in the face of the democratic traditions of this country and the open community that Portland State promotes. References: October and November issues of the Spectator. |

Comments