« REVIEW: The Limits of Control | Check out the new QUBSU Gallery! »
Final editon of the semester out now
Issue 7 of The Gown is now available for free across the Queen’s campus. Let us know what you think about the issue, or share your views on any of the articles by leaving a comment.
Your student newspaper is now be available for free every Monday fortnight at various points across the campus. Find the pick-up point most convenient to you by checking our ‘about’ page. Each issue is also available in PDF format through our downloads section (now with much smaller file sizes!).
We are always on the lookout for people to get involved, especially in the areas of photography, web and design. If you are interested in being a part of Queen’s independent student newspaper, then send us an email.
Tags: edition, Gown, issue, new, newspaper, qub, Queen's, queen's university, student, The Gown
This entry was posted on Monday, December 14th, 2009 at 9:00 am and is filed under Letters. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Related Posts
“Final editon of the semester out now”
23 Comments + Add a Comment
Comment Here:
Comments will not be published if:
- The language used is considered offensive, obscene, threatening or vulgar.
- You reveal any private information about yourself or anyone else, such as contact details.
- You make untrue, unsubstantiated or libellous claims about other people or companies.
- It is spam.
- Privacy: Please note that your email address is required to confirm you are a real person, and to reduce comment spam. Your email address is not used or recorded in any way by The Gown. Thanks for your comment. It will be posted once it has been approved by our moderators.
Loading ...
When will it be available online for download?
It will be available by 12noon.
Brendan
advertising@thegown.org.uk
It is online to DOWNLOAD now!
I found the article on page 7 extremely one-sided and lacking in firm evidence, instead it seems to be based on idle hearsay verging on a witch hunt after a minority member of staff within the students union implying that they are bigoted and making that member of staff feel uncomfortable and victimised.
The Gown did not even attempt approach the Union in relation to this article.
Also due to the lack of clarity within the article this article appears to attack three other members of staff who are not even involved.
What “mainstream political party” was Connor Daly distributing posters for in the Union? I’m curious to find out why they weren’t placed up around the Union.
Is the implication of this article that members of Union staff consider all Clubs and Societies “scum”? I’m fairly sure this isn’t the case in fact quite the opposite is true.
Can Connor clarify this for me?
Ohhh who was the staff member? Love a bit of gossip! The gown is going down hill tho!
I would also like to know what the “mainstream” political party was.
Mainstream is a bit of a value judgement. (My friends in the Alliance Party know whats coming next lol.)
Go on, Alex, do tell.
Anyway, it was nice to see the gown run a front page that wasn’t “Union Exec Absolutly Useless” and I enjoyed the Hood’s insight into the Gown office. I do wonder about Council coverage; you always make it seem dramatic when in reality I’ve been to more interesting anthropology lectures.
I have to say that i found that story in particular just lazy journalism? was the union contacted for any comment?
The writer of the page 7 ‘opinion’ piece should have approached the Union if this was a serious complaint.
The Union bar attack article was rather interesting though. I’d like to know more about how powers in SU tried to stop this story going to print…
“The Gown is going downhill”???? What a load of rubbish! Someone with a personal vendetta against the Gown? I think so!
And… if this staff member feels uncomfortable and victimised then he or she shouldn’t have said anything!
Keep sectarianism out of Queen’s!
Kerri-Anne, I think it’s fair to say that the comment article on page 7 is one person’s word against another. Therefore I would be a bit more wary about taking sides on this.
While these allegations are something which should be highlighted to students to create some comment and debate, I think it would have been much more appropriate to go through the proper channels.
Otherwise a decent read
After reading the articles about the individual who was attacked in the Union, the problems with the Students Council and the article on page 7 I feel some of The Gowns writers are resorting to sensationalism and exaggeration to drum up controversy rather than simple reporting of facts.
I’d hope that before going to print the writers and editor of The Gown are fact checking their articles and making sure personal bias and speculation are kept out of the issue.
From reading the Hoods extended rant this week it seems the implication is that one or more writers are using The Gown as a Soapbox in order to champion their own agendas. The Gown team must be careful not to let their otherwise excellent publication be tainted by creating scandal for scandals sake.
I think what everyone is forgetting here is that the page 7 article which everyone seems to so annoyed about was actually a COMMENT AND PERSONAL OPINION piece and NOT a factual news piece, therefore there is obviously less of an obligation to go through any ‘proper channels’ or contact the Union about the incident.
The incident at the union as a news piece is entirely factual, there is no bias or speculation in it whatsoever. The Union as a fact has done nothing as of yet to improve security and the article simply states that, the writer of the article also made sure to include police quotes and quotes from union security which further highlights the lack of bias and speculation in the story.
Also ‘curious circumstances’, The Hood clearly reflects the personal opinion of the Hood only and does not reflect personal opinions or ‘adgenda’ of the Gown as a newpaper or the rest of the people who write for the newspaper.
I agree with Peter Frog.
If the article was a news piece all the criticism directed at Gown would be absolutely deserved. However, a comment piece allows for opinion and comment and personal views.
However, maybe the journalist in question should have written a letter to Gown instead of any sort of article. At least he would be avoiding all this criticism.
oh and another thing Kerri-Anne Campbell what about the three other staff who arte now being victimised because of this article? who have definatly done nothing wrong???
So calling an article a “comment piece” entitles the writer to print whatever unsubstantiated material he or she wants?
I look forward to following your glittering journalist careers in years to come. Does anyone actually screen these stories for potential libel actions (because that’s the road that you’re headed on).
This rank bad journalism is all the sadder when one considers The Gown’s ability to run a perfectly fine story on the front page regarding the Seamus Heaney library.
Why was an official complaint about this alleged incident not submitted to the Director of the SU? That’s the key question.
When I read that article i thought nothing at all of it, apart from wondering what club or society was involved.
When I came across all this debate on the website i practically laughed.
Why would the journalist in question put his name to the story if he made any of it up?
That would be so stupid and it would invite so much stress into his life at this time of exams and essays.
Think about it.
I believe it’s 100% true. But I’m not interested in a guessing game about who it was.
I agree with above commenter though…a letter would have saved criticism.
@ David Murphy
just over “I do wonder about Council coverage; you always make it seem dramatic when in reality I’ve been to more interesting anthropology lectures.” It’s an interesting, quite valid point I’d like to address on here.
The procedural aspects of council are pretty dull by nature, and The Gown has a duty to inform students about what goes on at council. I would be genuinely sickened to think any of our council / union coverage is sensationalised; it’s just that a retrospective presentation of important moments/debates will pretty much always SEEM more dramatic than the full two hour-plus slog. I can see how this might seem a little odd to someone who’s dozed through a few too many minor const. amendments etc.
For example, a day-long House of Commons debate on some key piece of legislation will without doubt seem more boring first hand (or verbatim in Hansard) than a completely factual and correct Guardian piece reporting the key points, personalities and terms of debate.
I’d say our tone is usually fair, thoughtful and mindful of our paper’s identity which, for good or ill, is based largely on an oppositional “hold ‘em to account” foundation. If we’re aggressive, it’s all in good faith. “Scandal for scandal’s sake” would just be self-defeating and would cheapen the hard work we put in. Plus it’s worth bearing in mind we’re not trained, or particularly experienced. I think we’re doing a decent job.
the question who it was is one that should have been printed or at least what reception it was.