Cheers for the optimistic viewpoint.

How are students who write for The Gown not journalists? They are what the industry call ‘Student journalists’ involved in ‘Student journalism’.

I think it’s good that they are making mistakes at this early stage of their career. Think of how well they’ll be able to speak in interviews.

People like me who have yet to become involved in student journalism will look weak beside them at an interview for a job or masters course.

I would feel quite intimidated by a student journalist who was able to talk about mistakes they had made and lessons they had learned.

Real, actual, working journalists in the real world make mistakes and errors all the time. Bad judgements, incorrect stats/names etc. Gown writers will be able to recall their mistakes and that will look impressive.

I, however, may not have made any blunders as a wannabe journalist, but it’s probably time that I did. It would be better for me as an aspiring journalist.

Heads up.

I do, however, wonder about Peter Frogs assertion that reporting factual material means that there is no bias. Facts must be selected otherwise the story would not read well and would be full of irrelevent detail. Making a necessary choice about which details to include will lead to the story having a certain tone suggestive of a particular interpretation of the events. This may be the result of bias even if the writer has tried to be objective. It may not be the result of bias, but it is wrong to suugest that factual pieces are always unbiased. [See also Lies, Damned lies and Statistics].

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’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.

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

And… if this staff member feels uncomfortable and victimised then he or she shouldn’t have said anything!

Keep sectarianism out of Queen’s!

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…

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.

Mainstream is a bit of a value judgement. (My friends in the Alliance Party know whats coming next lol.)

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?

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.

Brendan
advertising@thegown.org.uk