05.24.06
Continuing open conversation about the newspaper. Response to Mats.
I encourage you, in the name of press freedom and free speech, to
continue disseminating this conversation.> Answer to Peter!
> Sorry Peter, but I need to correct you on your position!
I understand where you are coming from, but I’m afraid you are
mistaken. I need no correction on my position. As previous
vice-president, i was one of the architects of these latest fmsa
elections and positions. i believe therefore that i am sufficiently
well-versed in the definition of and the expectations of this role,
that i did, after all, help to define myself. But thank you for your
concern.
> Your goals are well and nice, but your role you have misunderstood!
> Yes, you are the editor, but if we(Meirav, Danni and me) didnt see the
> paper before it is released, it is by definition not the FMSA paper.It
> will be the Peter-paper.
I do not see how your not seeing it first precludes it from being an
fmsa paper. At any rate, I have no problem with you seeing it – i have
a problem with handing censorship rights to you. How can you say that
a paper whose primary focus is the unedited publication of all the
points of view of fmsa members (as I’ve defined that to be it’s
primary goal) is not an fmsa paper? Under what circumstances would you
reject the paper? If you did have the power to send it back demanding
changes, then YOU would be the editor. But you are not. I am.
> The editor position does not give you the dictatorship of the paper.
> Look at us as the owners of the paper if that makes it easier. We
> shall see the papers before they are released, and no paper that is
> not approved by all three of us(again; Meirav, Danni and me) shall
> ever again be released! The paper is representing us, therefore it is
> important for us to have a strict control over it!
I can agree with aspects of your ‘owners’ analogy. But as it’s
metaphorical shareholders, like at any other newspaper, your position
does not entitle you to an issue by issue review of its contents, but
at most the drawing up of guidelines for the paper that the editor is
to follow. There is a sharp line that must be drawn in the metaphor,
however, in terms of the implication that you are my direct bosses.
you are not.
within any such fmsa guidelines, however, the editor must have
complete creative control. This does not make me the newspaper
‘dictator’ but it does allow my to dictate what does or does not get
published, with the exception of any articles from the fmsa board,
which as i have already stated, i pledge to publish exactly as I
receive them. This does not turn it from an fmsa to a ‘peter’ paper,
or any other person’s paper. It does, however, focus the
responsibility to the editor. I challenge you to find a single
elected-editor university newspaper where that editor does not have
complete control over the creative content of the paper.
The paper does represent the fmsa, and it does so insofar as it also
represents the students (i will remind you that the fmsa’s direct role
is to represent these students). these students’ lack of
dissatisfaction with my running of the paper (with the exception of
two complaints i received about ‘not enough pictures’ – which i took
into consideration when producing this next issue) shows their faith
in me.
> I hope you can understand this, if not I am afraid we will have to
> find someone else to do this job for us, which we really hope we
> wouldnt have to!
> We want to keep you on the team, but you have to be cooperative on this point!
I regret and resent the idea that you feel that you have the power to
‘fire’ me from this position. That implies that i work for you, which
i do not. I ‘work’ for the students, independently. As I have the FMSA
Position of Editor of the fmsa newspaper for the following year, it
will be run under my leadership. If you or anybody should feel that i
have done a poor job, or that you or they might do a better job, i
encourage you or them to run for the position themselves at next
year’s elections. Until then, I am the editor.
I would appreciate an apology from you for insulting me in this way.
> Following your conversation with Meirav, we hope You will send us the
> paper by tonight!
I have taken great offence to this new fmsa’s implication from it’s
actions that it feels i am not suited for this job, and particularly
at it’s apparent thirst for power. I take great pride in the work that
i have produced, and will be happy to discuss it’s contents with
anybody who might have an opinion about it either positive or
negative.
I do feel that the best way to experience it as it was intended is in
physical paper format as opposed to electronic format, however, and i
therefore invite you to wait a few days for its tangible publication
before enjoying this year’s final edition. I will gladly entertain
your views about its content at that time, and will take any and all
suggestions into consideration for the first issue of next year.
continue disseminating this conversation.> Answer to Peter!
> Sorry Peter, but I need to correct you on your position!
I understand where you are coming from, but I’m afraid you are
mistaken. I need no correction on my position. As previous
vice-president, i was one of the architects of these latest fmsa
elections and positions. i believe therefore that i am sufficiently
well-versed in the definition of and the expectations of this role,
that i did, after all, help to define myself. But thank you for your
concern.
> Your goals are well and nice, but your role you have misunderstood!
> Yes, you are the editor, but if we(Meirav, Danni and me) didnt see the
> paper before it is released, it is by definition not the FMSA paper.It
> will be the Peter-paper.
I do not see how your not seeing it first precludes it from being an
fmsa paper. At any rate, I have no problem with you seeing it – i have
a problem with handing censorship rights to you. How can you say that
a paper whose primary focus is the unedited publication of all the
points of view of fmsa members (as I’ve defined that to be it’s
primary goal) is not an fmsa paper? Under what circumstances would you
reject the paper? If you did have the power to send it back demanding
changes, then YOU would be the editor. But you are not. I am.
> The editor position does not give you the dictatorship of the paper.
> Look at us as the owners of the paper if that makes it easier. We
> shall see the papers before they are released, and no paper that is
> not approved by all three of us(again; Meirav, Danni and me) shall
> ever again be released! The paper is representing us, therefore it is
> important for us to have a strict control over it!
I can agree with aspects of your ‘owners’ analogy. But as it’s
metaphorical shareholders, like at any other newspaper, your position
does not entitle you to an issue by issue review of its contents, but
at most the drawing up of guidelines for the paper that the editor is
to follow. There is a sharp line that must be drawn in the metaphor,
however, in terms of the implication that you are my direct bosses.
you are not.
within any such fmsa guidelines, however, the editor must have
complete creative control. This does not make me the newspaper
‘dictator’ but it does allow my to dictate what does or does not get
published, with the exception of any articles from the fmsa board,
which as i have already stated, i pledge to publish exactly as I
receive them. This does not turn it from an fmsa to a ‘peter’ paper,
or any other person’s paper. It does, however, focus the
responsibility to the editor. I challenge you to find a single
elected-editor university newspaper where that editor does not have
complete control over the creative content of the paper.
The paper does represent the fmsa, and it does so insofar as it also
represents the students (i will remind you that the fmsa’s direct role
is to represent these students). these students’ lack of
dissatisfaction with my running of the paper (with the exception of
two complaints i received about ‘not enough pictures’ – which i took
into consideration when producing this next issue) shows their faith
in me.
> I hope you can understand this, if not I am afraid we will have to
> find someone else to do this job for us, which we really hope we
> wouldnt have to!
> We want to keep you on the team, but you have to be cooperative on this point!
I regret and resent the idea that you feel that you have the power to
‘fire’ me from this position. That implies that i work for you, which
i do not. I ‘work’ for the students, independently. As I have the FMSA
Position of Editor of the fmsa newspaper for the following year, it
will be run under my leadership. If you or anybody should feel that i
have done a poor job, or that you or they might do a better job, i
encourage you or them to run for the position themselves at next
year’s elections. Until then, I am the editor.
I would appreciate an apology from you for insulting me in this way.
> Following your conversation with Meirav, we hope You will send us the
> paper by tonight!
I have taken great offence to this new fmsa’s implication from it’s
actions that it feels i am not suited for this job, and particularly
at it’s apparent thirst for power. I take great pride in the work that
i have produced, and will be happy to discuss it’s contents with
anybody who might have an opinion about it either positive or
negative.
I do feel that the best way to experience it as it was intended is in
physical paper format as opposed to electronic format, however, and i
therefore invite you to wait a few days for its tangible publication
before enjoying this year’s final edition. I will gladly entertain
your views about its content at that time, and will take any and all
suggestions into consideration for the first issue of next year.
> All the best on your finals!
Likewise to you!
> Mats
Peter
Eggert said,
May 25, 2006 at 2:27 pm
So dude… what´s gonna happen now?
by the way, I like what you´re doing, standing up to them like that. What they are suggesting is unethical, undemocratic and tramples your freedom of speech and press.
go Peter!!!