6 OPINION X
EDITORIAL
PRESS STAFF
Lorenzo Morotti Editor-in-Chief lmorotti@mail.sfsu.edu Monserrath Arreola Print Managing Editor marreola@mail.sfsu.edu Julie Parker Campus News Editor jparker1@mail.sfsu.edu Paul Eichenholtz City News Editor peichenh@mail.sfsu.edu Cody McFarland Copy Editor cmcfarla@mail.sfsu.edu Christian Urrutia Art Director curruti1@mail.sfsu.edu Brian Vu Multimedia Editor bvu2@mail.sfsu.edu Alexis Manzanilla Lifestyle & Culture Editor amanzanilla@mail.sfsu.edu Jailene Escutia Opinion Editor jescutiachavez@mail.sfsu.edu
Tahnia Ortega Social Media Editor tortegag@mail.sfsu.edu Jesse Garnier Faculty Adviser jgarnier@sfsu.edu Kim Komenich Photo Faculty Adviser komenich@sfsu.edu
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2018 GOLDENGATEXPRESS.ORG
Secretive administration fails to meet mission statement
I
f students examine the mission statements of the Golden Gate Xpress newspaper and SF State’s office of Student Affairs and Enrollment Management, they might glean the two organizations share common goals. Part of SAEM’s mandate is to communicate with students “...in a timely manner about issues and information which are of importance to your lives while here in college.” The Xpress’ mission is to do exactly the same. But the unfortunate reality is that our two organizations have a fractious relationship. That strain came to a head last week when an Xpress reporter was accused of fabricating an interview with a SAEM employee about a recent crime bulletin that described a suspect in a campus assault with a deadly weapon as a “transgender woman.” The description led to a storm of criticism, and numerous calls to the SAEM office from students demanding an apology. On Sunday evening, they got it. So maybe it’s not surprising that the administration lashed out at Xpress for reporting on their mistake. After our story went to press, the SAEM employee libelously accused our reporter of fabricating the interview, insisting that he would never say the words attributed to him in the story. He emailed his defamatory allegations to a variety of campus officials, prompting the administration’s communication department to demand a correction. In the field of journalism, this type of accusation is as bad as it gets. The fact is, it is an utter lie. Xpress has an audio recording of the interview. It was reported accurately and our reporter clearly told the employee sev-
eral times that his comments would be published. This employee even thanked our reporter for the interview. So what could have possibly led the employee — whose very job it is to advance student success — to so severely undermine a student journalist? We believe the administration’s obstructionism and disdain for our publication emboldened this employee to levy such an outrageous charge in an attempt to bully our reporter into silence. The Xpress has been hamstrung by red tape and condescension from SAEM from our first issue to this, our last of the term. The university’s representatives refused almost all requests for in-person interviews with the Xpress, stating that all inquiries would have to be submitted by email. Requiring a list of questions before agreeing to an interview is a form of prior restraint on the First Amendment. This policy might explain the backlash the Xpress received when SAEM found that an employee had given an unscripted interview. Such targeted bureaucracy allows administrators to tailor responses to best suit their desired narrative while stalling our student reporters into silence. Our editorial staff believes that a cooperative relationship of mutual respect and trust between the Xpress and SF State’s administration is invaluable for both organizations. We would be glad to foster such an understanding. But reporting truth will always take precedence above all else for our publication out of respect for the community we serve. Until SAEM recognizes the Xpress as publication worthy of the same respect other news outlets receive, we
“Reporting truth will always take precedence above all else for our publication out of respect for the community we serve.” will be at odds. It is imperative that the administration, as an informational gatekeeper, recognizes the importance of our twin roles in keeping the community informed. Working in tandem toward this end is beneficial for everyone within SF State’s community. This can only happen if the administration holds up its end of the bargain with regards to transparency and accountability. Perhaps the administration needs reminding of SF State’s own mission statement: “The University is committed to the following goals…fostering a collegial and cooperative intellectual environment that includes recognition and appreciation of differing viewpoints and promotes academic freedom within the University community; and serving the communities with which its students and faculty are engaged.” This accusation from SAEM is way over the line and should ring alarm bells within the halls of this administration. It’s time for the university’s decision-makers to review their attitudes toward freedom of the press and the student newspaper. Before defaming us, just remember: we are students; we are your most important stakeholders.
-Golden Gate Xpress editorial staff
Time magazine names slain journalist person of the year KIRK STEVENSON ksteven6@mail.sfsu.edu
J
amal Khashoggi has been the face representing slain journalists since his murder in the Saudi consulate on Oct. 2. The impact of his death and the persecution many journalists are met with today moved Time magazine to name Khashoggi and an ensemble of embattled journalists as 2018’s “Person of the Year.” Joining Khashoggi as Time’s Person of the Year are staff members of the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland, who suffered a mass shooting in June that killed five employees; CEO journalist of Rappler Maria Ressa, who is currently facing
tax evasion charges from the Philippines Department of Justice; and Reuters journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, who were jailed for their reporting on the Rohingya crisis. Time has dubbed this issue, “The guardians and the war on truth.” The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reports that 34 journalists have been murdered with a confirmed motive this year. Khashoggi’s death is an ominous reminder that the media is under attack by state institutions. In most recent events, the U.S. Senate voted Dec. 13 to end support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen despite the president’s idle attitude toward Khashoggi’s murder. Trump’s reaction should come as no surprise,
considering his behavior toward journalists and members of the media throughout his term as president and in his 2016 campaign. He even stated earlier last month that he can’t imagine anyone else being person of the year but himself. When under a capitalist system, many sentiments of morality are thrown out the window to satisfy the demands of economic growth. Like many journalists that enter the arena of politics and international affairs, Khashoggi’s job was to uncover the truth and the injustices of the people in power. Because of his criticism of a major monarchical society and the totalitarian government that oversees it, Khashoggi was unable to lead a life of assured
safety. The scenario is similar as more reporters become victims of their work environment. The U.S. should realize that the attacks on the press around the world have contributed to what the Capital Gazette suffered this summer, and there has yet to be an answer on how to dispel these events. Since the Gazette newsroom shooting, the issue of press safety has only gotten exponentially worse. The New York Times has been threatened over the phone, bomb threats have been made toward news channel CNN, and the White House pulled and returned correspondent Jim Acosta’s press credentials. These are just a few examples of how anti-media sentiment is evolving in 2018.
These cruelties toward journalists are a human rights issue, one that leaves authoritarian governments unchecked. Wielding the economic and global power that we do, the U.S. has a responsibility to think critically on how to act toward media suppression. Calling out journalists as the enemy of the people has turned the public against those whom Time is now calling the “guardians.” With the guardians dead, imprisoned or otherwise silenced, corrupters can enter positions of power and the voice of the people becomes lost. Having given them this title is a step in the right direction, toward shedding light on the oppression endured by journalists at the hands of world leaders.
