|
THE
AZWIPE AWARD To the WORST of SDSU's crappus newspaper and the people who make it possible. Graphics by Victor Hernandez. |
|
MONTEZUMA'S REAR-END: The coveted statue (judging from all the crap printed so far) is awarded to those whose work belongs at the bottom, who have added yet another crack to their newspaper's credibility, and who, therefore, deserve to be the butt of this joke. It is glow in the dark and scratch and sniff, providing the recipients with the same smell their work provides us.
|
THE WINNER FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 12-19, 1998 IS:
For performing above and beyond the call of DOODY, by unanimous vote the Daily Azwipe presents Montezuma's Rear-end to...
Johnny, here, who is the opinion editor, not only made a complete mockery of freedom of expression, but showed how little he knows about dealing with the truth all in less than 48 hours!
Due to the magnitude of John's gaffe, we now present a recap of the facts leading to his unanimous election as AZWIPE of the week.
It all started when Johnny decided to censor one of Hobi Reader's opinion columns dealing with sex education. Hobi made reference in her column to sexual activity by people under the age of 16. John didn't like this--even though the column was really mild--and told her to take it off. Hobi wattered down the editorial a bit, but adding a disclaimer telling the readers she was forced by the Aztec to "sanitize for your protection" the editorial. John didn't like that either--he probably didn't like to be exposed as a censor--and refused to print the column again.
(The full text of both of Hobi's columns, in case you're wondering what were they all about, is reprinted WITHOUT CENSORSHIP right here. How's that for freedom of expression? Click here for the original version of the censored column, and here for the wattered down version.)
As anyone with a good judgment and a sense of appreciation for freedom of expression would have done, Hobi quit the Aztec in protest against this kind of censorship--darn shame considering she used to be one of the two or three opinion columnists actually worth reading the Aztec for--and e-mailed us letting us know about the incident.
We immediately sent the Aztec a letter of disgust against their ongoing tradition of censorship and lack of regard towards the truth. John Woods, who probably noticed the fact that we carbon copied the letter to several other people, sent us a very demagogic letter telling us his reasons for censoring Hobi. He claimed that he was just being responsible, but the fact remained simple: he excercised CENSORSHIP regardless of whatever flimsy excuse he may want to give in his deffense.
So Victor Hernandez, patron saint of The Daily Azwipe, replied to his letter with another harsh reprimend against John's lack of regard for the truth. Apparently John didn't like to be told that because he answered right back calling the letter "diatribe" and saying that he didn't feel he should bother to respond to it.
Oh, really...?
Turned out Victor responded him immediately and, guess what? John responded right back again! So much for his "indignation" because of "diatribe."
As a service to our readers, and just so you can have a good laugh, here we reprint John e-mail messages. Please notice our comments in brackets...and try not to laugh too much.
|
Subject: Re: Censorship condemned.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:04:37 -0700 From: John To: toliro@usa.net First of all, I want to tell you I appreciate your comments. [Yeah, we've heard that one before...] I certainly believe ethically and professionally in the First Amendment. [He certainly didn's seem to be ACTING on what he was preaching when he censored Hobi not once, but TWICE. There's where the problem is.] And I wholeheartedly agree with the newspaper being a free exchange of ideas. But with those beliefs comes an overwhelming responsibility to be just that: responsible. [Ah, of course. So advocating the consumption of marihuana is perfectly OK (hey, that's what James Holter got printed in the Aztec), but stating the fact that kids under 15 are having sex regardless of how we may feel about it is not. Don't be a hypocrite! If the Aztec were so concerned about responsibility Neither James Holter nor Adrian Loudermilk would be allowed to print their imbecilic rants.] [Or what, is also "responsibility" to censor an article because it has a disclaimer saying that it had to be "edited" so YOU would allow its publication? Responsibility my ass! You censored those opinion eds because YOU didn't have the guts to stand behind them. Whether if this is as a result of your "moral" convictions or simply because you're afraid of who knows what that's for you to respond, but the fact remains plain and simple: You CENSORED a valid view--and, thinking about it, an innocuous one for that matter.] While the First Amendment guarantees us freedom of speech, there still remains a responsibility to practice it wisely. Just as it is not wise to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, I refuse to believe the readership would approve of a column championing slavery. [Yet he allowed James Holter to insult Russia (hastly generalizing its citizens as a bunch of drunks) simply because he read one statistic which doesn't really say anything about the whole of the situation. Some responsible journalism!] Specifically, in the column in question, Hobi's point of sex education at an early age was absolutely valid. What was not, however, was her anecdotal evidence advocating teen sex at ages younger than 16. [Oh, right, so now 16 is the legal age of consent. Give me a break! The fact is that kids are having sex before 16 and her illustration of the matter is not an advocacy; it is just the plain truth.] I want to assure you that I have run and will continue to run pieces with which I do not agree. That is part of my responsibility as opinion editor. And that, I believe, makes The Daily Aztec a truly responsible forum for a free exchange of ideas. John Woods, opinion editor [Yeah, that's what Greg Paull said to me back in fal 97 and Vin's Eye View got censored too. How can you people live with yourselves? You sound just as convincing as Castro advocating his regime and the photocopy ban in Cuba. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have the oportunity to actually do something for the college community and all you're doing is shining up your resume. What a fraud.] |
When John received the response to his demagogic letter--a response which went pretty much the same as our bracketed comments--he got quite pissed and sent back the following fine sample of poor professional disposition. Again notice our comments in brackets:
|
Subject: Re: Censorship condemned.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:43:19 -0700 From: John To: toliro@usa.net Victor, Because of your so obviously bitter ranting, I find my self not even wanting to respond to your diatribe. Before you so hastily condemn me and my decisions, perhaps you should do a little more research into the role of newspaper editors. Then, and only then, will your criticism be valid and relevant. [Notice how moronic his response is. First and foremost he says he finds himself not wanting to respond to "diatribe." Yet not only he DID respond, but he responded AGAIN only a few mintues after he sent this letter. So much for indignation.] [Also notice that he claims that the only people qualified for sending criticism to him are people who do research on the role of newspaper editors. This means that he just called irrelevant to each and every single letter the readers of the Aztec have sent over the years. Either John doesn't really give a damn about what most people write to the editor or he must be under the impression that there is some sort of NEWSPAPER EDITOR SURPLUS--from which, of course, Victor Hernandez is excluded, even though he has been an editor in his lifetime. We wonder how many of the letters John receives he actually takes seriously. So much for the Aztec "welcoming" letters to the editor.] [Notice also that whenever somebody tells the Aztec the truth is always "bitterness," "diatribe" and "irresponsibility." Wow! What a coincidence! Gee, all those comedians and political satirists out there must be awfully bitter! Poor Subcomandante Marcos! He must have one hell of a liver illness with all that bitterness of his!] [In other words, our views will ONLY be valid when they stop advocating the defense of the truth and start "conforming" to what John thinks it's the "nice" thing to say.] |
And if we had a ball with John's "indignated" letter we almost laughed our lungs out when we received John's followup response in less than one hour! Gee, and we thought he did not want to respond to "diatribe."
|
Subject: Re: Censorship condemned.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:22:04 -0700 From: John To: toliro@usa.net Victor, You have never even met me and you know absolutely nothing about me. [Which is a moot point considering the fact that what matters to the readers is not his person, but his WORK. Who cares about him? What we see when we pick up an issue of the Aztec is the WORK.] I do get a chuckle each week at your nominations. And I appreciate your very apparent interest in The Daily Aztec. Because I have read what you wrote about the newspaper on your webpage, I know more about you than you think. [Yikes! A new feature of the internet has been discovered! TELEPATHY!] It is time to admit to yourself, editors had enough sense not to print your submission and because of that, Victor, you are angry and bitter. [Again the "bitter" remark. Another moot point considering the fact that if the problem were in fact bitterness then the ones being pestered would be Greg Paull and Jamie Butow, who were responsible for the censoring of Vin's Eye View, and not this guy. Simple logic.] [Also notice the "enough sense not to print your submission" remark, which WAS aimed with bitterness. Whatever. Actually it did us a favor: now we know FOR SURE that this guy is no better than Greg Paull was one semester ago. Which is good to know because we thought this guy was actually doing better than Paull. Fat chance.] [Grudges against the Aztec are irrelebant here, but anyone, however, as a reader and as a student at SDSU, will feel ripped off by the lack of quality in the Aztec and its constant self-serving posturing about freedom of expression. You people don't have the first CLUE about how freedom of expression should be dealt with!] [And this leads to an interesting question: if John is so offended by blunt criticism, then what the hell is he doing in jurnalism in the first place? He should be taking notes on how to express the truth with absolute freedom!] |
Even though John claimed he was being responsible, turns out that Hobi Reader later on contacted Jamie Butow, who was the Editor in Chief before Kate Nelson, and, after commenting on the incident, was told by Jamie that had she been the Editor she would have printed the Hobi's article.
What's ironic about this is that Jamie Butow has been one of the LESS tolerant editors the Aztec has had. What does that say about John's actions?
Johnny's utter disregard for freedom of expression has earned for him Montezuma's Rear-end, but because of John's tantrum after being told the truth about his mediocre work as an opinion editor he has earned his place in the exclusive AZWIPE ROLL OF DIS-HONOR, displayed here underneath, to the worst of Daily Aztec editing. Nice one, John. Oh, all those journalism classes are REALLY paying off!
|
| THE AZWIPE ROLL OF DIS-HONOR |
Johnny's awards are, of course, shared by his Editor in Chief, none other than the every-passing-day-even-less-immaculate Kate Nelson, who, we're more than sure, cares just as little as John does about how freedom of expression should be excercised, and protected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|