Letter to the Editor:
March 30, 2007
As a reader of the Preface I was looking forward to the article on the “Vagina Monologues.” To my disappointment the reporter’s article was pulled at the request of the people being written about and instead of sending in another reporter the cast was allowed to write the article.
I cannot see this happening anywhere professionally except at a school newspaper where the editors are answerable to the administration.
I found two places in the printed article that describe the event for the reader.
The first monologue “A World Without Violence” was described as walking down the stairs and through the audience. The only other description of what went on in the performance is the final piece where the audience was requested to do something.
That’s it, nothing more is known about the actual performance.
I request The Preface to rewrite the article and explain to the students what went on in our auditorium during a performance of a monologue about a vagina. Good journalism demands better reporting than what was printed.
Ronald Czarnecki
Mass Comm. Student
April 2, 2007 at 10:54 am
Ronald,
I understand your anger for the lack of description, but the type of article in which you are asking for is a review. The event, though a play, was more than an event. It was a fundraiser, something that description, with limited space, could not do the event justice. Since it was to bring awareness to women and what it is like to be a woman. I feel a mere description would only lessen the impact of the event.
Angel
April 5, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Ronald,
Considering the editor of this publication is duty bound by respect to parties and seeks to keep the Preface a place of journalistic integrity, I could let you in on a few of the reasons why the article was presented in the way it was that he cannot.
But, you know these reasons already, considering you were in the hallway having a “covert” meeting earlier today with Chuck Norton and Robert Francis, the IUSB Preface writer assigned to the Vagina Monologues shortly before his employment with the Preface was ended. It was Francis who called this meeting “covert” and asked me to leave the public hallway. The conversation was quite audible, having to do with Francis’s newly-acquired ideas about the inner workings of the preface, which I had never heard him speak about before he was let go. But again, you were there, so I’m not saying anything you don’t already know.
But do us the pleasure and come at us straight on. If you’re going to try to frame the Preface as somehow lacking in journalism standards and somehow “answerable to the administration” (its separation from the administration being the CORE principal it was founded on), do not resort to covert meetings and attempt to construct half-baked notions about what the Preface is how it operates.
Leave your sleeper tactics to the CIA. If you’d like to see change, I’d invite you become personally involved as a member of the Preface staff. However, this covert nature of yours puts your integrity in question … I’m not sure you (or the above letter) can be trusted.
In the meantime, I’d like anybody reading this letter to ask the dear ladies of the Vagina Monologues “why is Robert Francis no longer working at the Preface?”
Jedediah Walls
Publisher, Liquid Magazine
April 6, 2007 at 11:41 am
It is simple as to why he is no longer employed there. Francis has been having issues with integrity himself. He uses rude behavior and does not seem to understand certain things shall not be said. I have read Francis’ original article and I know for a fact the article he presented completly missed the underlining fact for the event. As to what Jed has said above I do not know. But, I do know that the actions in which Francis did is the reason for the pulling of the article, not b/c the Preface must adhere to the administration. They are not part of any decision made in the Preface. They have a responsibility to the readers, whom ever they may be. And on his third complaint about lude behavior unacceptable by general society. There is more to the story I assure you, then what you are letting on. The article was pulled for good reason, not because the administration demanded it.