2011 recruitment bits and pieces

[Low C Sharp]

a newspaper has to maintain an audience for its product. If it doesn't, it will go out of business.

Isn't this true of a Greek system, and an individual chapter, as well? Hundreds of chapters have gone under due to unpopularity with their target audience. It behooves them just as much to be careful how the actions of one member may alienate another group of students.

At any rate, I wasn't arguing that the paper shouldn't have seen it coming, nor that the Greeks at UIUC didn't have a right to boycott the paper if they wanted to. I'm arguing that if they exercised that right based on one editorial, that was an ugly decision and reflects poorly on the system.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

At any rate, I wasn't arguing that the paper shouldn't have seen it coming, nor that the Greeks at UIUC didn't have a right to boycott the paper if they wanted to. I'm arguing that if they exercised that right based on one editorial, that was an ugly decision and reflects poorly on the system.

Oh, is this one of those threads where you, the wise non-Greek, tell Greeks what we should or should not have done?

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

Isn't this true of a Greek system, and an individual chapter, as well? Hundreds of chapters have gone under due to unpopularity with their target audience. It behooves them just as much to be careful how the actions of one member may alienate another group of students.

At any rate, I wasn't arguing that the paper shouldn't have seen it coming, nor that the Greeks at UIUC didn't have a right to boycott the paper if they wanted to. I'm arguing that if they exercised that right based on one editorial, that was an ugly decision and reflects poorly on the system.

No - it is not true of the Greek system. "Hundreds of chapters" have not gone under because of the actions of ONE member. A few dozen have lost charters because of the stupid actions of members which had legal/moral consequences. Other chapters have gone under due to campus culture, and some have because of an inability to effectively recruit which you may call "unpopularity". But to make an analogy between a newspaper's need to not tick off its readership and the fact that a chapter might not be popular with every possible pnm is ridiculous. Chapters' popularity is much more nuanced than the situation with an overtly hostile editorial.

"Reflects poorly on the system"? Really? Choosing not to support a business which is obviously biased against you reflects poorly on you?

HYPERBOLE IS THE BEST THING EVER!

[33girl]

Both of these editorials could have been edited in a way that would have made them less offensive. Leaving out the names of the "Bible beating" etc sororities in the first editorial, for one. It was completely unnecessary for those groups to be named. It did NOTHING other than upset women who should be happy and enjoying their new sisters.

[MTSUHopeful]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Both of these editorials could have been edited in a way that would have made them less offensive. Leaving out the names of the "Bible beating" etc sororities in the first editorial, for one. It was completely unnecessary for those groups to be named. It did NOTHING other than upset women who should be happy and enjoying their new sisters.

This might seem random and a bit out of line as I am not a Greek (yet, hopefully), but it's articles like these that really screw with future PNM's. It gets wrong ideas in our heads about which sororities are "bad".

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

Isn't this true of a Greek system, and an individual chapter, as well? Hundreds of chapters have gone under due to unpopularity with their target audience. It behooves them just as much to be careful how the actions of one member may alienate another group of students.

At any rate, I wasn't arguing that the paper shouldn't have seen it coming, nor that the Greeks at UIUC didn't have a right to boycott the paper if they wanted to. I'm arguing that if they exercised that right based on one editorial, that was an ugly decision and reflects poorly on the system.

The actions of GLO members alienate people all the time. Just the idea of exclusive groups winds a lot of people up, with no particular actions ever required. I think the best that most of us can hope for is that the positive things that GLO members do outweighs the negative.

It's been my experience that the students drawn to campus papers seem to enjoy reporting on the foibles of the Greek system, and with reporting on more serious GLO issues, a sense of schadenfreude can creep in to the coverage. Once that adversarial dynamic gets started, I'm not sure why Greeks would have much interest in supporting the paper.

And on some level, this kind of issue might be one of the most important for a young journalist to face. How do you effectively cover misdeeds of the affluent or powerful* without alienating the people who keep you in business?

*Greeks didn't have that much influence the general campus community at my school at the time I attended, and never could have taken down the Red and Black, but if a Greek boycott put the paper out of business, that's a pretty influential group.