In advance of today’s protest against the increasingly dunder-headed UW Daily, editor Sarah Jeglum publishes an editorial:
The Daily staff, this campus and I have all grown this quarter. Challenges have come up in every sense, and we’ve met them to the best of our ability. I’ve watched my staff grow and have learned with them what exactly it means to be a student newspaper — to be the voice of a campus — and we’ve formed new ideas about how to better serve our community.
You, our readers, have also been challenged. You’ve been challenged by what we’ve written. You’ve agreed and you’ve disagreed. But most importantly, you’re letting us know what you think, and we’re listening.
In doing this, you’ve challenged me. You’ve challenged my ideas of journalism, its purpose, and the weight and meaning of free speech.
There’s more where that came from.
Also, here’s the Seattle Times report on today’s protest, featuring both the glamour shot of Jeglum above (taken by Times photographer Greg Gilbert), along with this caption:
Sarah Jeglum, The Daily’s editor-in-chief, says it’s important to have a balance of viewpoints in the paper and isn’t planning any sort of apology.
The rally/protest regarding the Daily starts today at 12:30 pm on the west side of the Husky Union Building on the UW campus.
(Added P.S. for those bemoaning my tacky, petty headline: Sorry, but if you’re trying to work the Ann Coulter schtick, you can’t just poop out of your mouth. You have to look like a Barbie while you do it.)
Just look at that chiseled square jaw, the deep blue eyes and the bright blonde hair. You do your Aryan heritage proud, Ms. Jeglum.
Where are the wingnuts storing all these blondes?
Tacky, David.
She’s a firefighter. No joke.
She may be an idiot, but mocking her appearance is pretty goddamn low. And really fucking irritating.
Maybe I haven’t been keeping up on the Daily neocon watch well enough, but I don’t understand what the issue is unless there’s actually some sort of systematic silencing of liberal opinion at the paper.
Is there any evidence that the editorial staff is choosing to run opinion pieces based on politics besides the one or two right-wing pieces Slog has linked to?
And Schmader, that title is really petty of you.
Sorry all of you annoyed at my petty headline, but if you’re trying to work the Ann Coulter schtick, you can’t just poop out of your mouth. You have to look like a Barbie while you do it.
Yeah it’s pretty shitty to defend what was published (was there ever a counterpoint article published as well?) but I think her overall philosophy of including opinion pieces from all sides (yes, even bigots) should be applauded. Unbiased journalism and all that.
Of course, if the a rebuttal to that opinion piece was never published, then she IS a bigot, and deserves everything she gets.
And the cracks about her looks? Ouch. A little below the belt, and seeing as not everyone at the Stranger is a supermodel, seems a tad petty and spiteful.
@5: He is just being balanced. SOMEONE has to represent the beautiful people perspective.
Snarky comments about her journalism, politics, and thought processes are fine. Snarky comments about her looks are unneeded.
Oh PLEASE. Free speech has to do with the protesters outside your office. I has nothing to do with what you choose to publish in the Daily. Are you going to publish editorials promoting the KKK or advocating that the Daily staff should be thrown in jail? You published an article equating gay people with dog molesters. The point of free speech is to allow people to criticize and protest people like you for their hateful and oppressive positions.
This reads like a Perez Hilton article.
Just stupid, David. Can the Slog take another swing at responding to to Jeglum’s editorial?
If only she really was like Ann Coulter, her jaw would be wired shut right now.
But more seriously, I feel like all this is good. Bigots have expressed their stupid opinions, and people in the community are challenging them on it. I fucking HATE what happened with Prop 8 and the other anti-queer measures that passed on Election Day, but am at least glad to see people getting actively engaged. True democracy only works if people show up and participate. The right has had their organizing shit together for a few decades and done a great job at keeping their folks energized and engaged (John McCain’s loss withstanding); any movement for liberation/equality needs to be similarly situated and prepared.
Maybe wiring her jaw shut would help.
I still fail to see how the content of a university newspaper is anyone’s concern who isn’t faculty, staff or student body of said university. There are ways for said concerned parties to express displeasure with a newspaper: letters to the editor, protests or, most simply, not picking it up. Even if the paper is subsidized by the school, there would definitely be a reaction to thousands of unread newspapers being tossed every week. If the students are still reading the paper then, well, why the outrage?
I think people totally have a right to protest, but I also think that it’s a little silly to protest a student paper. Sure, they are printing stupid opinion pieces, but isn’t college where you grow and develope more educated opinion? I mean, it would be like protesting against kids who still believe in santa claus. They’ll get it, it just might take a few more years.
And I think that Michael Moore has proven that to be a wing-nut of either side you don’t need to be ‘pretty’. And Anne Coulter is just skinny. Other than that and some make-up she looks like a fucking troll.
Unless she has compared herself to Coulter, she is not “working the Ann Coulter” schtick. She is the editor of a student newspaper. She may not be a very good one and she may take some really stupid fucking positions, but attack her on those things, not her appearance. Does being a female conservative in the media automatically mean that you are “working the Ann Coulter” schtick and thus subjected to attacks on your appearance?
Neigh, neigh, David!
I wouldn’t worry about Mizz Jeglum here too much; if that writing sample is representative, her journalism career is going to be short. It’s not even good cant; pure banality.
I’m sure the delicate snowflakes at UW are getting overheated at some pretty minor examples of petty bigotry (which newspapers should print in order to allow their writers and others eviscerate it).
That said, Sarah is clearly ready for mainstream journalism. She’s mastered the mealy-mouthed, insincere, condescending corporate doublespeak that big paper editors use when addressing the legitimate concerns of their readers. I’d like to “challenge” her to write an authentic response.
Lol @ the people whining about her appearance. Her EDITORIAL WORK needs a makeover, it’s not David’s fault if her face isn’t appealing to you. Get over yourself, she’s asking for people to go after her with the crap she’s printing, if she can’t stand the heat get out of the fire.
whatever happened to “I may not agree with what you say, but i’ll fight to the death for your right to say it”. ok, the quote may not be exact, but it is close. Just because a newspaper prints something we disgaree with doesn’t mean they should shut down or apoligze. it’s an editorial, an opinion, she has the right to that opinion, lets let her have the opinion and wallow in the fact she is wrong.
Hey Julie @ 18: No, being a female conservative does not automatically make one an AC wannabe. But thinking it’s cute to spew (or publish) inflammatory retrograde bullshit is totally Coulter territory. (And no, not all conservatism is inflammatory retrograde bullshit.) Thanks for writing.
@22 Of course she has the right to spew her bullshit but don’t be stupid, people have the right to respond. Free speech works both ways.
So, the logic here is:
– Sarah spews inflammatory retrograde bullshit
– So does Ann Coulter
– Ann Coulter looks like Barbie
– If you spew inflammatory retrograde bullshit, you must look like Barbie
– Therefore it’s okay for me to make fun of Sarah’s looks
Weak, Schmader, weak.
I’d lose the polo neck – I want to see more of your neck, I bet it will look good. The oval glasses are wrong, I want to see some sort of corner on there. Your eyes are your best feature, a good haircut and new glasses will frame your face and really show them off. You really need some eye color in there too, it’ll brighten up your whole face. You’ll need eyebrows too.
None of this has anything to do with her abilities as a journalist, but anyone who publicly represents anything needs to take a few minutes to scrub up a bit. Just because we’re respected professionals doesn’t mean we have to wander around like cave-people.
David Schmader is just a catty woman hater. That’s why he makes fun of her looks.
Sarah Jeglum looks like a dude.
so because she’s an asshole who happens to be a blond woman, it is fair game to make fun of her looks? you would not say she is in “coulter territory” if she weren’t a blond, or a woman.
fuck you for making me defend this piece of shit, schmader, you sexist asshole.
how about posting pics of yourself and your colleagues?
In the issue of fairness, one should consider how “handsome” Schmader looks in flip flops.
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cf…
Julie in Chicago – your anger is righteous and unprecedented for the reasoned writer from the windy city.
David – she’s got you. This 22yr old is no Ann Coulter – yet. New take?
I did like the point above – it is a student newspaper already. Why do we care? Only reason half of us know of this patently stupid editorial is thru Slog. You are disseminating this crap as an attack – but really, it’s a spitball from some frat boy. Move on. Bigger game out there.
Hey David – I do love your yard art though. If you flush it, does it turn into a fountain?
@David: And was it Sarah who spewed hate-filled retrograde bs? I thought it was just that frat boy douchebag. I mean, she might have allowed it be printed, but is she one of the writers? And if just that frat boy wrote bad stuff, does that mean he has to look like Anne Coulter?
…and just for the record, I think Dan Savage’s refusal to wear a suit when he was on national television was similarly reprehensible.
I think the people hatin’ on David Schmader need to go to their Netflix accounts and put Paris Is Burning in the #1 spot. Ms. Schmader is throwing shade and she is doing it well. Educate yourselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu1HxO_He…
Yeah, it’s lame to make fun of her looks, but I read the comment as a call for her to comb her hair, a request I fully support.
32: I wish that was my yard art! That’s at the Seattle Children’s Theater. My home toilet is small and boring.
Its not about censoring a dissenting point of view. Its about allowing a piece that doesn’t measure up to journalistic integrity. Nowhere is there a basis for Fay’s arguments. To not apologize for an opinion that is full of delusional bullshit deserves ridicule.
As for her looks, it does seem a bit misogynist to criticize her intellectual positions by confounding them with her appearance.
Then again, homosexuals are judged (harassed and murdered) on their appearance as well. Claiming that homosexuality is a problem that needs to be dealt with IS hate speech, because it presupposes a value judgment on the nature of homosexuality and calls for an extreme response.
Is it fair to criticize her looks? Depends on your perspective.
And 35: Thank you. I don’t deny that my (two-word) comment on her looks was bitchy, but there’s a time and a place for bitchiness, and this feels like one of them.
damn i was going to go the rally today but woke up slammed with a cold.
lame to make fun of her looks though.
but while you’re at it, don’t forget to keep trashing John Fay. this is just as much his fault. lets not get sidetracked by barbies.
dawginExile, the students care because they have no choice in the fact that $220,000 of their tuition money funds the paper. Simply not picking up a copy isn’t protest enough to affect the paper.
Plus, it doesn’t even make sense. Ann Coulter is fucking ugly.
Again, COLLEGE NEWSPAPERS SHOULD NOT BE ON THE INTERNET. Let them be dumb and let the students work it out on their own.
Erica tearing David and the commenters a new one in 3, 2, 1….
awww SNAP! schmader called dat red bitch ugly
Any creepy homophobic essays should be run as opeds, not editorials. Then your excuse is the paper is open to a full range of views.
But the man and sheep outline was a nice touch, equivalent to saying: Warning! Moronic point of view expressed here!
Metaphor fail. Sorry David, but she’s nothing like Ann Coulter; she’s the equivalent of whoever publishes Coulter’s writing. No self-respecting conservative lady would ever be seen, nor photographed, without tons of makeup.
The Daily sucked in the late 90s and I think it’s a systematic problem. Jeglum’s defense is exactly the same argument the Daily raised in 1998 (?) when the then-editor and a reporter (both male) got kicked out of a dorm when they tried to “interview” a woman who had been date raped a couple of hours before.
Oh boo-hoo, their free speech rights as journalists had been violated. The undergrad student senate passed a resolution calling on the Daily staff to undergo sensitivity training, and when it was brought to the Board of Publications – made up of professors and actual professional journalists who are supposed to oversee the Daily – they said they didn’t want to interfere with the operations of the Daily.
I believe one of the purposes for the Daily is to teach the student writers and editors to be ethical in their work. They should try a little harder. And I do think an editor’s job is to make sure that nothing inflammatory or hateful is published, including opinion pieces, even under the guise of “balance.” So she deserves criticism, but not Coulter comparisons.
She’s considerably more attractive than Ann Coulter. It’s bullshit to poke fun at her looks, man, and you should be embarrassed for being so low and striking below the belt.
She didn’t write the piece… She’s an editor who published something that wasn’t worthy of publishing, and her editorial was free of any ‘bigotry,’ and she didn’t defend the douche who wrote the original article, so chill the fuck out.
I was appalled by the article, and I agree it was stupid as hell to publish something so inflammatory, but taking a bad picture of the editor and publishing it alongside ridicule of her appearance is just as wrong, frankly. It’s a dickhead move.
I know so many women who have a lot of unnecessary anxiety about their appearances, and as a male, I can’t imagine what it’s like to have sweeping judgments made based off of that. Neither can you.
I don’t know if the girl is mean, cold-hearted, bigoted, stupid, or whatver, but what you said WILL hurt her… It won’t piss her off from an ideological standpoint and get her ‘enraged’ like you are, it will HURT.
I don’t know her, or even care about her, but fuck you for stooping to that level, seriously.
Perhaps Ms. Jeglum would next month like to encourage a public dialogue between people who hate Mexicans and people who love Mexicans in the name of balanced journalism and free speech.
Two things. First, the reason this girl got to be editor, and the reason these right wingers keep getting published is because few of the now outraged liberals at UW ever want to put in the effort to write something, or do the thankless job of being editor. Its not hard to write for the daily, if you tried it would do a lot more to change the paper than a protest.
Second, you ass, the difference between Ann Coulter and this girl is that Ann Coulter is a money grubbing PROFESSIONAL attention whore, while this girl is an amateur college student. Do you think she is doing this for attention or money? She’s probably some poor dumb kid from Eastern Washington who doesn’t know any better because she was raised conservative. I was conservative coming into college. A lot of people were. She got the job because the high minded liberals had better things to do, and she brought her opinions to the paper. So you liberal students need to get your asses in there and replace her, but just sitting back and sniping at her looks is fucking pathetic.