I’ve heard, from multiple sources, that everyone in the Wichitan hates everyone else and is out to drag all organization names through the mud.

To be honest, that’s all a little exaggerated.

No, we don’t hate everyone.

Yes, we report quite a bit of negative news.

But, which news sources (you know, the ones that get the most website hits, the tabloids, US Weekly, etc.) don’t run negative stories?

Negative stories are what sell.

Nobody cares to read about how Chi Omega raised another $6,000 doing Swishes for Wishes…just like they did last year and the year before that and probably the year before that too.

Sure, it’s feel good stuff.

But since when does feel-good stuff make the news unless it’s astounding and not the same-old, same-old?

I will be the first to admit that I am hypocritical as well as judgemental.

And if you don’t think you are then you had better re-evaluate yourself or you might as well start a new religion…because you just may be the new Messiah.

But seriously, why is it that because negative stories are printed (stories of fact or opinion, for that matter), people throw fits and think that they were printed as a personal attack.

News is not a personal attack.

New is news.

Dr. Rogers has made quite a few mistakes and spent quite a bit of money in the past few years.

Why should The Wichitan NOT report those types of stories?

How would things be if the stories weren’t reported?

There would be no news.

Would anyone read US Weekly if it were just stories about how Angelina raises her 7,000 children?

No.

Is the New York Times one of the most respected news papers because it only prints positive stories on everyone?

Does President Obama think the New York Times is out to get him because they wrote about his errors?

Of course not.

News is news and public figures, as well as organizations, are in the limelight and when mistakes are made, there will be a reporter to write about it.

Shouldn’t each negative news story or piece be motivation to improve, to stop making the same errors?

Instead of taking the story like a personal attack, the smart thing to do would be to look at it objectively and realize that facts were reported. The facts were taken from information given.

Just because something is outlandish or negative doesn’t mean it is “slander”.

What other information are reporters supposed to obtain other than the facts that are available and given?

Dr. Rogers is a public figure and his actions are in the public eye. His spending habits are matters of the public.

As for Greek life, the philanthropy of the Greeks is obvious to the public, the lower-than-average median GPA of the Greeks is also public knowledge.

Why should it not be reported?

Quotes are quotes and people will backtrack on what they say.

Unfortunately bad things happen and mistakes are made.

But news papers, including The Wichitan, are there to report the mistakes, as well as the important victories.

What would the campus be like if The Wichitan didn’t exist?

There were out cries like “why does the Wichitan exist again?” and other things such as “what a worthless paper”.

Now, think about it, who on campus would report the news…even the bad things?

Would you?

Would you step up to the plate and take the good, the bad and the ugly and put it down on paper for the world (or community) to see?

If you would then why aren’t you doing it?

Without the paper reporting the negative stories would you ever know about things that go on around campus, or went on? Would you even care about the mistakes Dr. Rogers has made?

If you don’t care about the mistakes, what does that show about your interest in the university?

Sure, you want your degree. Want to get in and get out. But, everyone who attends MSU is an important part of the community. And why shouldn’t the community members be informed?

So no, we don’t hate everyone.

But, personally, I think everyone has room to improve. Including me.