Ouch.

THE POST IS RACIST!!!!!1

Bah, nobody's going to quit reading The Post because of one less-than-entertaining columnist's gaff. It doesn't speak for the paper as a whole, just for her own lack of forethought.

Honestly, though, I didn't expect her column to be pulled. Now what uninformed, poorly written, conservative opinion column am I going to focus my Godless, liberal rage upon?

Hrmph.

I really can't think of anything to say except, pwnd.


It's sad that she had to be let go because of this though. Hopefully she'll learn from this and it won't reflect too badly on her in the future.

Exactly what credibility does The Post have anymore?

They hide someone's (Ms. Herzog) column from a few months ago because it talks about how people are not voting for Barack Obama, a candidate that The Post has worshipped like a god, for the right reasons. Now they get rid of a columnist because she endorsed a Student Senate candidate that the newspaper did not? Shouldn't college students be thinking for themselves in the first place? I think the editors of this publication have a bit of a conflict of interest here as well. It wasn't like she was using The Post to further her campaign. She was just standing up for what she believes in, and The Post tried to silence her voice.

Regardless of if a certain other candidate for Student Senate president is more qualified for the job or not, The Post has practically been wiping this person's butt for them, and that is not right either. The Post should be informing the students about the candidates, and they have not been doing that for all candidates. Ms. Griffith was only trying to present her opinion and to inform voters that there is an alternative choice.

Lastly, voting is about making informed decisions and thinking for yourselves. What does anyone's opinion about anything matter (I am well aware that some smart-ass is going to type "Then why should we listen to you?" right after they read this.)? You should be voting for someone because you think they are the best person for the job, not because anyone else thinks that you should vote for them.

Why doesn't someone start an alternative news source for OU?

"What makes me most sorry, however, is knowing how people will react — with disappointment, with anger or with an “I’ve always thought The Post is awful” attitude. I hope that we are able to regain any trust that we’ve lost because of this (or any other error, for that matter). I hope that you will keep reading."

Hah, my feelings exactly: "I've always thought the Post is awful." Sadly, I did not feel this way three years ago when there were somewhat decent columnists. The satirical skill of Noah Blundo is something that Yonker will never attain. the Post used to be something that I felt compelled to pick up not just to see how further our school has slipped into a state of perpetual embarrassment.

I hate, hate to admit this. My sister came home from Miami in Oxford with a copy of their student newspaper. Not only was the overall professional quality of the paper much, much better than that of the Post, but the ideas expressed in the op/ed section were much more clear, concise, and intelligent. Now, considering our students boast the credentials of their "top ranked school of journalism," I think its time to re-evaluate the stale complacency we have accepted with the drivel published in the Post. If we cannot do better than this, I truly do accept the decline of this institution as a harsh reality.

I'm not heartbroken to hear that the column will no longer be appearing in the paper... However, I do think its dumb that the Post decided her actions were drastic enough to remove her column. So she withheld some information; who doesn't? Lets stop walking around like a bunch of politicians thinking we are perfect and get real. This is not anywhere near the worst thing a columnist has done in my 4 years here. I'm pretty sure the people I'm thinking of still write for the post. That said... it seems as though Ms. Griffith's termination was not warranted nor was it right. Up until today, I would defend the post to others when they said "the post is terrible", but in my opinion, that meant that you journalists would defend each other and have each others backs. That is why other journalists still write for the post, they were supported by others. Now Ms. Griffith is in trouble, in need of help, and you people, her fellow journalists, turn your backs on her. Now I will agree, with disappointment and frustration, that the Post has reached a new low...
Ms. Griffith good luck with the rest of your college career; keep your chin up.

Maybe it's just me, but who cares about a third-rate columnist with questionable journalistic ethics?

Does anybody else remember that humor columnist from last year? He was hilarious. Too bad it's too late in the quarter, they should replace Griffith with him (God, I'm subtle).
But c'mon, people, this isn't the first time the Post has taken such action. I may be wrong, but I believe a columnist was removed last year for also writing for Speakeasy. These are simple journalistic standars, people. Speaking as a former columnist, one should not use one's column for the use of giving oneself political or financial advantage. If Griffith didn't know this, she shouldn't have been writing a column in the first place.
DoctorEw220, she shouldn't even be commenting on the elections if she's a part of them. Period. Conflict of interest, plain and simple. You can hide behind voter's responsibilities if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that she had a political bias.
You actually made a decent point, however, in your last statement. I would love to see a second news source to combat The Post. A little competition would be good for the paper. I'm graduating, but when I come back in a few years for my master's, I expect you to have made progress in this matter.

Bobcat: Zing!

I'm shocked they actually fired Alissa over this. Some columnists have made MUCH bigger mistakes (ethical or factual) and stayed on board over the years.

Besides, Alissa is a columnist. It would be one thing if they issued an editorial endorsing Klatt, without mentioning that one of the executive editors (who decide the content of the editorial) was running on his ticket. At least in my view, I always thought columnists had a certain degree of independence from the newspaper. That's why they don't pay us and run a disclaimer saying "this columnist's views are not necessarily that of The Post."

But I think this comment from DrEw might explain a few things:

"They hide someone's (Ms. Herzog) column from a few months ago because it talks about how people are not voting for Barack Obama, a candidate that The Post has worshipped like a god, for the right reasons. Now they get rid of a columnist because she endorsed a Student Senate candidate that the newspaper did not?"

Yes, they DID refuse to put my column up on the Web for most of the day when it ran, then when they did, didn't display it in its normal place. Funny how they've mostly run Birthday Party endorsements in the paper, while only posting letters supporting AAA and ACT on the Web.

First off, it's not uncommon for newspapers to show political favor. Newspapers have been doing it for decades, it's not going to stop. It may or may not be right, but it's nothing new.
Second off, can anyone supply a list of mistakes made by people still working for the Post? I'm actually curious.

rofl.

Man, will you people quit being cryptic? Now I want to know who the questionable journalists are!

I'm a J-school alumna, and it makes me very sad to see people dog the quality of The Post and our journalism students. I am just starting to read the paper online again, so maybe there's some history I don't know. However, I also want to remind people that The Post is a student-run newspaper, and we're all still learning in Journalism school. Part of learning is making mistakes and how we deal with them.

I read the column yesterday, and while I thought that the columnist's actions were a bit questionable, I'm very shocked to hear today that she got canned. Partly because as a former newspaper editor, I know that all the responsibility shouldn't be on the columnist. Yes, she should've been forthright with her affiliation with the candidate. (Honestly, I didn't really see why her column needed the endorsement; it would've been much better if that last paragraph were left off and she were just imploring students to vote.) However, as a former Student Senator for my college, I find it very hard to believe that she was running for that position and her J-school colleagues, including her editor, didn't know. That's why editor's notes exist, unless you were just setting her up to fail. However, this looks poorly on the whole paper, so I can't imagine that were the case. That line at the end should've been added before the paper ever went to press, and if the author didn't disclose it, it was the editor's job.

It was right to correct the mistake, but unless there's a history that I'm missing here, I don't really think that firing someone was the solution. Of course, when I was both a journalist and highly involved in politics, I was very upfront about that situation.

My mistake, I've been reminded that The Post was having errors with all the columns on the Web the day the Obama column ran. It's not true that they were trying to hide it. I also don't work in the newsroom (I submit everything by e-mail), so I didn't really know what happened.

Good riddance. Her column was awful anyway. She pissed and moaned about how only white people are getting scholarships and how smoking bothers her. Grow up. In my four years, her column was the only one that I found either a) unreadable at times, or b) so mind numbing that it made mad me angry when I saw her mug in the paper. At least Herzog and Yonker's columns spur some thought and mild brain activity. Ms. Griffith's just made me vomit.

Maybe it is just her.

I am sure the Rev. Al Sharpton will be visiting Athens later this week because this is obviously racist!

I am guessing Rev. Jesse Jackson has already been on the phone with Rowdy Roddy to discuss how big of a shakedown this is worth to the rainbow coalition.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright will most likely base his next sermon on the white hatemongers at the Post.

/hyperbole

Personally, I think Alissa could have been let go long ago for her other columns and this decision is more about the snowball that has been created and less about her slip up in disclosure for this particular column.

I wish her luck, but I think she needs to explore more of the world and quit looking for things to get offended by before she writes for a paper again. That is, if newspapers are still around in a few years. Otherwise, she'll fit right in at the Huffington Post or Daily Kos. Good luck, Alissa.

As long as we're firing people how about Emily Smith (Buckeye wannabe columnist). If we can't make her leave our school we should at least get her out of our media. How about the feminists corner columnist too? She hates Disney princesses and I think they're pretty cool, so lets fire her too. Oh and that Chris Yonkers, he's a flaming idiot.

Let's just fire everyone we disagree with, including The Post editorial staff for making a lousy decision here.

The only column of hers that really raised my ire was the one that implied that having a "faith in God" is needed to survive. Am I the only one tempted to ask "WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW!!!"? I won't, but jeez, I want to.

I guess her column, Locke, just didn't believe in God enough. Pray harder, 750-word column! Or, conversely, maybe it was all part of God's plan. We'll never know, because there won't be a follow-up, unless she decides to slum it in the comments and letters to the editor like the rest of us.

In all serious, Ms. Griffith, on behalf of all your readers, I would like to say, sincerely and modestly: AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

WWJD, man, WWJD.

did alissa make a mistake? yes. but there is no need to be nasty. she has lost her job, that should be punishment enough.

He'd life his ass off at the irony, that's what he'd do. Then he'd make a reference to her catchphrase "maybe it's just me" that would make us all laugh until our spleens ruptured.

locke, i guess you are too smart to believe in a higher power; just cynicism, right?

"she has lost her job, that should be punishment enough."

Welcome to the world of opinion columns. Write one, and you're no longer a person; you become the equivalent of whatever viewpoint you espouse and become treated as such. You _are_ the opinion, and when the column goes to print, you get tossed to the wolves.

Schadenfreude, pure and simple.

Sure, just cynicism. Makes it easier to write me off, doesn't it? Couldn't be that I got fed up with the inherent hypocrisy of the religious, or the smug, unwarranted sense of superiority displayed by some of religion's followers. No, it has to be that I'm just too arrogant. I'm certain to come to my senses around the time we find out evolution is just a conspiracy and all the abortion doctors die of AIDS.

i agree with most of what you have said curiosity but there is a difference between criticsm and personal attacks. i think that the comments mocking her faith in God are uncalled for and crossed the line. remember she was fired for her writing an article in which she had a conflict of interest not the column in which she espoused (good word by the way) her thoughts about God.

Perhaps I should clarify. The raucous laughter I displayed above was not in response to her faith, but her style of writing and argumentation in general. I apologize for the confusion. Everything else is totally me mocking her.

Agreed, CNash. I think it's pretty fair to say that everyone agrees she was a lackluster writer. I personally don't think she should have been fired; public humiliation would've been enough. Disagreeing with her religious views (which I most certainly have done, vehemently) and taunting her or kicking her while she's down (which has just happened) are two different things. We agree, completely.

Locke, I'm on your side, trust me. Still, take the high road. It's easy to (as I said) kick the religious when they fall off their pedestals (and oh, so satisfying, I know), but it's better to just smile. Don't pour salt in the wound; take a picture of it and hang it on your wall.

locke: i made no reference to organized religion. you either believe in a higher power or you dont. and i called you a cynic because from your posts you appear to look down on those who do beleive and you mock their beliefs. As for myself, I am a practicing catholic who believes in evolution, i dont interpret the bible literally, and who ever said anything about abortion doctors having AIDS.

Just as a clarification, cynicism refers to questioning peoples' motives as selfish, not a general pessimism. It's unfortunate these two concepts have become conflated.

finally, locke i think we have more in common than what has been posted on this post. i am by no means overlly religious. and i can see how i read too much into your earlier post. i do not seek to convert people like the campus crusaders...in fact i tell them im catholic so that they leave me alone (the one thing they hate more than a nonbelieve is a catholic...kinda makes me happy on the inside).

CNash: I might look down, but at least I admit that, whereas many of the religious advocates I've met will readily turn their noses up at the mention of evolution, and claim total purity and righteousness. I have no problem with religion, just those who claim it's THE solution, which Griffith has.
As for the abortion doctors jab, that was just a combination of common gripes the religious right has with the liberal, Godless left. Kinda hoped you'd be able to put that together. For someone who mocked me for being "too smart", you sure run the other end of the spectrum, don't you?

i stand corrected, curiosity...perhaps i should have used the lable pessimist?

Alright, didn't catch your latest post, CNash. I'm just taking jabs, and basking in the glory that is The Posts one instance of actual journalistic justice this year. Perhaps I'm enjoying it a little too much.

Pessimist, realist, person who thinks, they all work here.

Not really. Pessimism is the state of mind that expects bad things to happen. The most appropriate word would be "bigotry," though it's got such a heavy connotation, it doesn't seem to fit. I hesitate to call Locke mean-spirited or intolerant because I myself side so closely with his/her feelings and beliefs.

Now you can be cynical about me, because I'm being selfish. ;)

i understood the jab at doctors...i was trying to make light of the comment, it was funny to me at least. probably once again afirming in your mind that im too dumb?

at any rate, i agree with most have what you have written but i am OK with those who claim Christ is the solution as long as they keep to to themselves. they can still live a Godly life without trying to convert people.

Fine with that, CNash. The problem is, I'm only trying to jab at people who don't keep it to themselves. The others just get caught in the crossfire.
I retract any inference that you're dumb. You just angered me with the "too smart" comment, and I reacted.

i can see that. and i take back the comment calling you "too smart". i guess you are just smart :)

i guess we can both be on 180's shit list

Huzzah, then.

I am not condoning Alissa's actions, but it is disgusting that The Post will use this instance to make an example out of a great writer. There has never been a time during which The Post has been considered a credible news source; the reporting is shotty and the digging is usually done until the reporters get the information they want, and nothing more. As a journalism student here at OU, I am ashamed by our school newspaper and proud to say that I do not work for it. Maybe what is questionable is The Post's inability to publish accurate, unbiased facts. Aren't journalists supposed to report ALL sides of the story? Maybe Alissa was tired of seeing the one-sided viewpoint of the paper. How about reporting Will Klatt's constant campaign violations? But no..The Post is too busy cuddling up with him beneath the sheets.

Don't even try to call yourselves credible.

A great writer? Are we talking about the same person?

It's amazing ec3313 that The Post, being such a second rate news source, hardly worth reading, with reporters who don't know how to do their jobs, that so many of them go on to aspiring careers. It's not like Katie Carrera and Matt Zap are both working for the Washington Post now... We don't have a record of successful journalists and photojournalists dating back throughout the Post's near 150 year history either, because I'm sure Terry Eiler, director of the School of Visual Communication, former National Geographic photographer and former Photo Editor at The Post isn't a distinguished member of the fraternity either.

But you, who is so ashamed of the paper that wins numerous AP awards year after year, don't read The Post, so you wouldn't know how hard the present Post staff nor how hard past Post staffs have worked.

Every paper has bad writers, this journalism school has plenty. Griffith was a horrid writer. Every column was poorly written, made ridiculous claims with little or no informative backing and made the paper look bad. This was a violation of Post policy, a form we all sign at the beginning of each year we start work. Griffith knew what she was doing was an ethical breech and the same thing that happened at The Post is the same thing that would happen at a large scale paper.

You seem to forget that The Post is not your school newspaper, because it's not a school newspaper at all. It is an independent newspaper run by students, who are your peers. This is why The Post strives to keep the university and it's officials accountable for their actions. A school newspaper couldn't do that because it would be censored by university officials.

Just because you are part of the journalism school at this college does not make you an authority on what a good paper is. Start working for one, then get back to me.

Just because editors get internships with large papers doesn't mean that this paper reports no real news and puts a "down with the administration" twist on everything.

The Post might be "independent", but the General Fee (students) give it money. All of these garbage opinion pieces make me feel like I'm flushing a chunk of my general fee down the toilet.

EDIT: Should be a "does not" in there in proving my first point

ts1227--

My suggestion: Cry a little more.

One thing to remember is that although this is a college newspaper, and you guys are college students and staff (I'm an alum.), this is still the real world, and some people will take others down a notch to make themselves look good and advance. As sad as it is, someone will have to take the shaft so someone higher in the chain of command can cover their own ass. People are making a big deal about how she violated policy,and how there was a conflict of interest, and how she signed a form at the beginning of the year, but the fact is that IT WAS STILL PUBLISHED. You can't focus all anger at the writer when someone higher-up in the chain of command did not say or do something. Her column still made the paper. The editors are only punishing her so they do not look bad themselves, because clearly they were somewhat responsible for the column getting published. It's time for the editors to just admit that they made a mistake by allowing the column to be published, quit passing the blame onto someone else every time they need to cover their ass, and move on.

UPPTY BITCH GETS COMEUPPANCE

liberty_rules / for the post

You would think with all the journalism students who hate the post, one of them would try and start their own paper to compete. I mean, obviously since these opponents are so swollen with journalist integrity and top-notch reporting skills, they should be more than capable of blowing The Post out of the water, right?

i think alissa should look into taking legal action. others who write for this paper have done far worse. OR we could all just drop it and move on to the next post scandle.

I don't know if you remember elementary school, but "everyone else was doing it!" isn't a viable excuse.

agreed denimandginham. but if one individual is held to one set of standards the rest should also be held to those same standards. businesses, in the "real" world, go to great lengths to ensure equality and fairness with hiring and firing processes. The Post has not dealt fairly with Alissa compared to how they have dealt with their other employees. I see a problem here.

There's a difference between writers being tacky, and writer's breaking one of the cardinal rules of journalistic ethics.

*tacky and writers breaking

Damn, what's wrong with me lately?

ethics? you mean the same ethics that showed the face of the man attempting to kill himself in baker? the same ethics shown in not printing a single support letter for AAA or ACT OU even though many were sent but printing several Birthday Party letters? the same ethics used to defend a racist column? i could go on, but what would be the point. feel free to further justify the actions of the paper. i this were indeed the "real" world, heads in an HR department would turn because of this termination.

I'm not debating the ethics of the editor. I'm debating the ethics of the writer. As far as I know, no writer made the decision to post the picture, nor does any writer decide which letters to print, nor does any writer tell another writer how to write. As I said before, I don't think she should have been fired. Humiliation is enough. As for the editors, well...

agreed. but i dont think we can seperate the actions of the editor and the actions of the writers. if i am correct, the editor gave the green light for alissa's column to be printed without a disclaimer saying she is on the aaa ticket. lets not let the editor go without some kind of questioning.

I'd like to know if the editor actually knew about Alissa's position in AAA. Might sound like a silly question, but it's important, yes? Understandably, ignorance is no excuse, but it might shed light on how the whole situation came about. Still, it's not the job of the editor to babysit a writer. The responsibility still falls squarely in Alissa's lap.

Man, this is better than TV!

I can't figure out how Alissa's few words (literally--it was only the last paragraph) of support for the AAA candidate was a conflict of interest. Yeah, she was running on the AAA ticket, but let's remember that Senators get elected AS INDIVIDUALS. A vote for the AAA president is not a vote for Alissa as College of Communications Senator. Maybe she just believes in what he stands for?

Maybe most people vote for student senate along party lines, but they aren't required to. I didn't. There's no evidence that she endorsed the guy with the sole intention of getting votes for herself--which really would be a conflict of interest.

Oh, and even if she had used the column to say "vote for me!" that wouldn't be a conflict of interest, either. I used my column yesterday to say "Come to my student organization's speaker!" and that was okay. Maybe it's not the best use of a column, but it's not unethical.

Sorry if this point was already made, but I don't have time to read through the bickering of Ashley Herzog and Post commentators.

I agree that I think that this is a little harsh. I've never been a member of the Post but what kind of back asswards editing system do they have in place? Isn't it ultimately up to the editor to cut something the paper deems inappropriate? If they thought it was so inappropriate why would they print it in the first place? I mean really, do the columnists just submit their column with no editing at all? I find that extremely hard to believe. So it's just a case of the Post using a columnist as a scapegoat for their screw-ups.

Hear Hear! mmakebeliever

It is a conflict of interest because of the nature of Student Senate elections. The campaigns are ticket driven and the clearest representation of what the ticket members are for is the candidate for president on their ticket. When a name is unfamiliar on the ballot, it is more likely that you will choose who to vote for because of their party affiliation (just like Democrats and Republicans in the big leagues) without being sure exactly what that individual believes.

On the other hand, anyone who has read the columns written by Miss Griffith would probably recognize that she is a complete idiot incapable of forming complex thoughts and not vote for her on those grounds.

im glad to see we have moved beyond the immaturity of personal attacks fritzmcgee

Never have, never will.

I have been waiting for this day for a long time. I'm sorry that it had to because of something like this but I cannot say that I will miss her column. I will finally be able to pick up the post on a Wednesday and not have to read about how everybody is a racist and how her McMansion lifestyle is so severely crippled every single day by Americans discrimination of African Americans.

Any other university publication would suspend columnists/writers in this same situation. There is no reason that one person should be provided a soap-box where others are not.

Herzog, it simply is not the same thing that you used your position to garner interest in a public forum, and Alissa used her position to imply that Will Klatt would be a terrible Student Senate president. I agree that her column did not scream "Vote for meeeee!!", however, it is against the interest of other candidates running for Student Senate.

I think the Post response was harsh, but they needed to take some action. Preferably, they could have suspended her column for a couple weeks until the election was over. Do we know if Alissa even notified the Post management to make them aware of her candidacy? Did the Post know she was running for AAA regardless? Both parties are to blame. Alissa could have written about another subject, and the Post could do to be more aware of the university-related extracurricular activities of their columnists/staff.