UCSD Guardian Fails to Uphold Principles of Unbiased Journalism

Gabriella Hoffman

Once championed as the “marketplace of ideas,” American universities are now overrun by liberal, anti-American, and anti-Semitic bias. Campus Reform reports, “According to campaign finance data from the Huffington Post, of the UCSD faculty and staff who contributed to 2008 presidential campaigns, 96% gave to Democratic candidates and just 4% to Republicans. In total, UCSD donated $48,966 to Democrats and $2,192 to Republicans.”

UCSD is allegedly mired by “political apathy” according to students. This phenomenon is rooted in the idea that political activities on campus are minimal and that students are too focused on consolidating their careers to be involved. With the intent of combatting this “challenge,” the “official” newspaper at UCSD, the Guardian, seeks to fill this void.

While the Guardian is typically seen as UCSD’s official paper, it is not representative of all student viewpoints. Leftist, anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-alternative lifestyle, pro-illegal immigration, and pro–big government biases comprise many of the published articles. As UCSD students routinely hide from politics on campus—unless they are personally afflicted by Associated Student (AS) rulings or campus incidents—the Guardian should uphold its journalistic integrity and maintain neutrality in its reporting.

Nevertheless, statistics compiled from articles printed Winter Quarter 2011 debunk assertions that the paper upholds journalistic principles of fact-based reporting and neutrality. Our analysis found that the Guardian’s six sections (opinion, news, Hiatus, Focus, sports, and Letter to the Editor) are all infested with some type of bias—particularly a leftist bias.

Of approximately 307 articles printed from January to March 2011, almost one-third displayed some form of bias. Of those biased articles, 78 percent boasted a left-leaning bias compared to 22 percent with a right-leaning bias. The least leftist section was Sports, which had only one politically biased article out of 67 they published. On the other hand, both the letter-to-the-editor and opinion sections were tied with 75 percent total bias and 75 percent leftist bias, respectively, but this is to be expected.

However, it is their news section that bears the most disheartening “news.” Of the 107 articles published, one-third displayed the slant of the Guardian staff and the abandonment of their principles of neutrality and unbiased reporting. Many of their news articles paint a picture specifically designed to generate support for a certain perspective. They also often focus only on one side of a news story, while completely ignoring possible alternatives or opposition.

Some of the most egregiously biased articles were “Chicano Mural Will Become Permanent Mosaic in April,” “Students Rally Against Prop 23 Supporters in Rancho Mirage,” “UC Students Campaign for D.R.E.A.M. Act,” and “New Diversity G.E. Approved for Fall.” This leftist slant is also reflected in the number of articles covering the same topics. Five news articles cover the UAW 5810 union and the deportation of postdoctoral researcher Wilda Helen, three news articles cover support for the D.R.E.A.M Act, and eight news articles advocate for increased spending and for fighting the budget cuts. In all of these articles, they present one-sided portrayals of the story they are covering.

In their article regarding the Chicano Mural on Peterson Hall, the Guardian ignores the blatantly political bias presented within the mural and possible critiques of the administration’s decision. Instead, however, it features glowing statements of support by the UCSD administration, the artist, and a member of MEChA.

Similarly, in an attempt to cast the Koch Brothers as evil billionaires, in “Students Rally Against Prop 23 Supporters in Rancho Mirage,” the writer wrote that the prominent conservative-libertarian donors secretly met with others to set aside “hundreds of millions of dollars” to take over elections. According to Open Secrets.com, Koch Industries only invested $11,002,235 dollars into campaigns from 1989-2010 and ranked number 83 of 140 “Heavy Hitters.” Nevertheless, Open Secrets.com reveals that Democrats—who are so-called champions against “evil billionaires” and “greedy rich folks”—ironically got the most donations from 1989-2010. Most pointedly, this “news article” also lacks any quotes or statements to balance the 8 anti-Koch quotes by the Director of the California Student Sustainability Coalition and the Director of the UCSD Student Sustainability Collective.

In all three of their articles about the D.R.E.A.M. Act, no arguments are presented or sought by students who do not support California tax dollars to go to illegal immigrants. Rather, they solely present quotes in support of the D.R.E.A.M Act. Then in their article, “New Diversity G.E. Approved for Fall,” they discuss the additional diversity requirement being added at UCSD, and they continue the trend of bias by only citing sympathizers and supporters of these new requirements. Most outrageously of all, they cite that “The new requirement has generally garnered a positive response from students” without providing any evidence to support their claim. At least we at the California Review have the decency to admit our political point of view

As is to be expected from their opinion section, the Guardian doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased most of the time. From editorial board statements such as “Moving Back the Goalposts” and “Growing Diversity,” to “point/counterpoints” which present sham defenses for the controversial topics they address, such as “Chick-Fil-A Anti-Gay Support,” “Arizona Immigration Crackdown,” and “South Carolina’s New Currency,” the Guardian penchant for leftist ideology runs rampant. Also, in the “Props and Flops” section of the opinion section, they give Obama “props” for not enforcing DOMA and they give the TSA “props” for their enhanced body scanners (i.e. pornoscanners). At the same time, they give “flops” to Republicans for repealing Obamacare and to Gov. Rick Perry (TX) for supporting students in their right tocarry concealed weapons on campus.

In “Moving Back the Goalposts” the Guardian laments that even though holistic review is “big step toward leveling the playing field and acknowledging applicants’ privilege” it does not do enough for affirmative action, and does not do enough to increase UC diversity based on skin color.

In their point/counterpoint segment, the Guardian ignores the common sense defense for controversial topics and instead presents students with straw man arguments. In their discussion of Chick-Fil-A’s decision to offer free catering to a Traditional Marriage conference, the Guardian presents their choice as either bigoted, or as a choice by wealthy executives out of touch with society. If the Guardian wants to bash Chick-Fil-A’s decision to support traditional marriage they have that right, but they should at least present a legitimate counterpoint. The same situation occurs in their discussion of the Arizona bill to repeal birthright citizenship. Two of the three arguments presented cast this bill in a negative light, while the third offers a weak defense of it. The only valid point made is that this bill likely violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and one of the arguments even calls this bill “a regressive step in the direction of a pre-Civil Rights era.” Sadly, the pro argument portrays the bill as a step toward a solution while simultaneously bashing opposition to illegal immigration, incorporating language into their discussion such as when they write “children of undocumented immigrants, [are] pejoratively called ‘anchor babies’.” Then, both arguments about South Carolina’s desire for an alternative currency support the Federal Reserve and bash the idea of competing state currencies (even though these were the norm prior to the establishment of the IRS and the income tax).

Finally, in “Growing Diversity,” the Editorial Board asserts that engineering diversity through General Education (GE) requirements is the only means to combat “racism” on campus. The article unabashedly claims that UCSD is racist, stating, “…it’s important to remember the root of this proposal: irrefutable evidence that our campus is not nearly welcoming enough to minority students.” The Editorial Board ignores the idea that intellectual diversity—rather than reverse discrimination— is what should be encouraged on a college campus, and it is the merit of a student that should be rewarded rather than the color of their skin or their gender.

Although the Guardian claims to be UCSD’s student voice, it is merely an outlet that trashes any viewpoints that do not fit into their “politically correct” worldview. This paper tramples over “unpopular” beliefs, providing both misinformation and the narrow range of opinions representated by the Guardian. It is imperative to write Letters to the Editor and challenge the Guardian whenever they violate their own principles of neutrality.

Gabriella is a sophomore in Eleanor Roosevelt College majoring in political science.

Guardian Investigation Chart

Advertisements

48 comments

  1. FUCK YOU · ·

    I’m lolzing soo hard at this? don’t do drugs — otherwise you’ll end up like this poor, sorry excuse of a human being.

  2. Anonymous · ·

    Go back to Mexico, Gabriella. There, is that right wing enough for you?

  3. Guardian editor4 · ·

    OMG I like hate America. I hate Israel and I want all kinds of illegals here and (hold on let me check the article again)……oh yeah I really like “alternative lifestyles.”

    Get a grip, Gabby. The Guardian is full of a lot of different types of people, and we do not agree on a lot of things.

    Also, your including ‘Letters to the Editor’ as a section shows absolute incompetence. They are not written by Guardian staff. Then you conclude the article by telling your readers to……….write a letter to the editor. Huh.

    Sincerely,
    A gay russian communist anti-israel Guardian editor

  4. @Guardian editor4 – I’m not defending Gabby’s stances on the Guardian. But, the California Review in the past has posted Letters to the Guardian online, due to the fact the Guardian failed in publishing the letters. A majority of these letters that were not published had conservative leanings.

  5. The fine print:
    The views expressed in the California Review are solely those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the staff as a whole. Our print publication may have been funded in part or in whole by funds allocated by the ASUCSD. While the California Review is recognized as a campus student organization at UC San Diego, the content, opinions, statements and views expressed in this or any other publication published and/or distributed by California Review are not endorsed by and do not represent the views, opinions, policies, or positions of the ASUCSD, GSAUCSD, UC San Diego, the University of California and the Regents or their officers employees, or agents, even though they should. Each publication bears the full legal responsibility for its content. ASUCSD is our sponsor. Request a copy of their agenda, and you might find out how much they dole out to us. © 2011 California Review. All rights reserved.

  6. Oh boy. This Gabriella girl is a real piece of work. I kid you not, one of her facebook status updates was of her whining about learning about Marx and communism in MMW. She complained that the university was trying to turn her into some socialist.

  7. Wow. I feel bad for this girl. Someone so willfully ignorant clearly must have been indoctrinated at an early age and never stood a chance at forming her own political beliefs.

    Just keep regurgitating what your favorite news sources tell you to believe, Ms. Hoffman. The regressive agenda will fall to logic and reason eventually.

  8. @Guardian editor4 – At least GH offers objective data to make her case, whereas, instead of addressing those, all you do is make flippant, sarcastic, mocking retorts. Not so impressive for the Editor in Chief. Obviously not everyone on the Guardian staff agrees with each other but that’s not the point being made by GH. The point was that even if you did all agree and held left-leaning opinions, it’s your journalistic duty to override those and represent both perspectives objectively or alternatively just openly declare yourself a liberal newspaper. Next time try a serious rebuttal – or maybe there isn’t one, in which case your silly comments are understandable.

  9. @Guardian editor4
    “Also, your including ‘Letters to the Editor’ as a section shows absolute incompetence. ” Really? Since Guardian choses which letters to print, its a totally valid section to analyze. Makes total sense to me. Whose incompetent?

  10. notguardianaffiliated · ·

    @Kudos
    You should probably learn the difference between “whose” and “who’s” before arguing someone’s incompetence, because quite frankly, the mistake makes you sound, well, incompetent.

  11. @ notguardianaffiliated · ·

    @ notguardianaffiliated – Someone is being petty, and brining up a non-sequitor to the initial issue.

  12. @ notguardianaffiliated · ·

    bringing*

  13. notguardianaffiliated · ·

    @ @ notguardianaffiliated
    No. I really think that if you’re going to argue someone is incompetent, you shouldn’t be sounding like an illiterate yourself. It’s impossible to take you seriously.

  14. @ notguardianaffiliated
    Talk about not taking someone seriously!! LOL! How can you take someone seriously who’s 😉 only response to a conceptual point is to note a misspelled a word? Since you couldn’t come up with a more substantive critique of my point, I will assume you found it, unlike my spelling, to be flawless.

  15. Guardian editor4 · ·

    @kudos
    I did make flippant remarks because poor form shown in her data collection led to sweeping, unfounded claims. By her methods, she could write a conservative-leaning letter to the editor every week and pretty soon it would be a right wing newspaper. Not well thought out.

  16. two points:

    one — there’s no methodology for determining what “leftist” means, meaning that you can deem an article “leftist” whenever you want. and it’s troubling when someone with claims to objective data bases said data on a seemingly arbitrary demarcation. in short, your “objective” data will remain subjective until you provide a methodology. and I’m guessing that your methodology is bunk if you aren’t confident enough to present it.

    two — a purview of the actual paper (both online and off) reveals absolutely NO claim to either objectivity or endorsement by UCSD officially. your assertion that the Guardian is UCSD’s “official” paper is completely arbitrary, which kind of destroys the entire point of this article (you need that assertion in order to argue that the Guardian’s ‘bias’ is unwarranted). in fact, if you read the staff listing of the news paper, you’ll see that the views of the Guardian “do not necessarily represent the opinions of the UCSD Guardian, the University of California or Associated Students.” so they have every right to be as biased as they want. and before anyone goes claiming that “we pay for this shit” — we pay for the California Review too.

    in short — the Guardian can be as biased as they want. you should try logic-checking your argument before running off looking for “leftist” articles (most of which are only leftist because you say so).

  17. to everyone else whose responses consisted of nothing but sarcastic flame-bait —

    you’re part of the problem. shut the fuck up or offer something of value before criticizing someone. remarks like yours offer no reason for ANY publication to change their ways, much less the California Review’s.

  18. A UCSD Alum · ·

    Hey California Review, way to throw your writer to the wolves. Throwing up a reminder of your fine print (by the way, “do not represent the views of ASUCSD, etc., even though they should”? Did you just slant a disclaimer?) does very little for your confidence in the merit of this study.

    The third paragraph basically says that since UCSD students refuse to figure out their political views for themselves, they’ll turn to the Guardian to form their opinions for them. And since the Guardian is usually liberal-seeming, this is unfair. Rather, the Guardian owes it to the apathetic student body to be neutral, so that they may be informed and neutral until they pick up different sources that are legitimately advertised as liberal or conservative and be swayed fairly and accordingly. It’s the Guardian’s duty to inform, its everyone else’s job to convince.

    When and where the heck is this ever the case? I hate to break it to you, but bias in the media is not a battle you seem ready for. This article is pretty pointless, especially since in my experience, people see what they want to see. 33% biased articles by your count is better than I expected for a college paper. Many don’t see their bias until it’s pointed out by a dissenting party, least of all kids of college age, and maybe that’s your goal here, but I can’t tell if you’re mad at the Guardian, UCSD, or all of America’s political leanings, ’cause these arguments are weak enough that I think you’re confusing your bone to pick with the Guardian with someone else. Either way, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a nonpartisan media outlet that toes that line 100% of the time. Why? Because it’s impossible. And face it, who would be interested? Don’t MSNBC and FNC both assert their neutrality? Are you going to call both of them out too? Or does one need to be seeking to fill an apathetic void for it to be hypocritical? Playing the high-and-mighty “at least we endorse our bias” card is beyond cheap, and does nothing for your argument.

    As for the rest of the article, I read “Growing Diversity” and it has nothing to do with affirmative action, so I fail to see the relevance of opining that “it is the merit of a student that should be rewarded rather than the color of their skin or their gender.” I think the headline itself was misleading, but the issue at hand concerned fostering tolerance and understanding of minority groups via a diversity requirement. And that’s a decision by the University, not the Guardian. It seems like the diversity requirement is supposed to encourage what you call “intellectual diversity,” which you immediately follow with a rather disjointed decrying of affirmative action. I thought that the Guardian’s stance was that the diversity requirement was well-intentioned but flawed, not that UCSD should enroll more minority students over possibly more qualified applicants. It appears that the Guardian ignored the “intellectual diversity over racial diversity” point because it was, well, not relevant. Whether or not the Guardian supported affirmative action in a previous editorial has no bearing on this one.

    Sure, the Guardian could be closet liberals. They may have tipped their hand by declaring UCSD to be racist, or supporting one too many leftist ideals of the University, but if you are going to attack them, you better do it with some semblance of logic. I can’t figure out how you decided that only some Opinion articles are biased. This article’s conclusions are so bizarre, I’m almost surprised that all the Sports articles weren’t marked as liberally biased because UCSD athletes wear the color blue.

  19. Well written, factual and non-biased.

    Truth Has No Agenda

  20. socal local · ·

    What a bunch pathetic, poorly educated trolls. Gabby, excellent work at showing just how biased UCSD really is. Perhaps because the Univ is near the Mexican border, as with most border High Schools, it is simply full of Mexican immigrants, both legal & illegal. They aren’t even on the same playing field because they want to make California into a faux, progressive version of Latino Hopey Changey, not just fruits & nuts. A waste of a college education going there.

  21. @Guardian editor4
    “By her methods, she could write a conservative-leaning letter to the editor every week and pretty soon it would be a right wing newspaper. Not well thought out”
    Does Guardian publish every letter it receives? If so then, yes, your point is well taken. If, on the other hand, it is selective then she could write one every day and you could theoretically exert your bias by not selecting any of them for publication. So again, it is reasonable to assume letters are a valid barometer of bias. The missing information, however, is how many letters are received and what percentage express ‘liberal’ versus ‘conservative’ views and how does that compare to the proportion printed.
    In any case, it seems like the Guardian has a perception problem which should trouble you as journalist and editor (if you care about objectivity) and at least make you and your staff introspect on whether you’re letting your own views color the way stories are covered.
    (BTW – do you publish all letters?)

  22. Another guardian editor5 · ·

    @Kudos
    Let’s settle this once and for all. We publish all letters to the editor, unless it’s outright hate speech. We’ve received a grand total of (and I know you like stats, Gabs Hoffman) ZERO letters from the esteemed Gabriella Hoffman. Believe me, we publish almost every letter we get, including several (read: too many) from Richard Thompson.

    I hope this answers any lingering questions you may have.
    Now please STFU

  23. Stop. Just...Stop. · ·

    Gabriella Hoffman, your writing is, to put it mildly, amazing. It is literally impossible to read this article without thinking that you’ve read the unedited ramblings of a complete idiot.

  24. LOL! Looks like the UCSD Guardian is really ticked off. Somebody pushed some buttons! You guys are acting real professional and mature!

  25. @Another guardian editor5 – I know of several people who wrote letters last year and this year who never got published, one being my own. I didn’t know dissenting from the Guardian or critiquing the status-quo is “Hate Speech” these days.

  26. California Review holds an event where at least 800 people show (Dan Barker / Dinesh D’Souza Debate) and yet the Guardian didn’t report anything.

  27. Guardian editor4 · ·

    @LOL

    I’m not professional remember? I’m “Leftist, anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-alternative lifestyle, pro-illegal immigration, and pro–big government.” I hate America so much I’m going to bomb UCSD with help from Hamas. Then hopefully the government will take over everything. Also I’m a gay illegal from Tijuana. It’s all in the Guardian, you just have to read it!

  28. Given how these Guardian hacks are foaming at the mouth, it’s pretty obvious you’ve hit the nail on the head here, Gabby. The articles you cite clearly border on propaganda.

  29. Annoyed With Ignorance · ·

    This article is absolutely hilarious. The big point your missing is that The Guardian is published in a predominately liberal school, and therefore will cover liberal topics in sections like News and Focus. This does not excuse any bias that may be found within articles, but you also make weak arguments that the majority of articles are slanted by only reviewing the sentiments in articles that support your own agenda of making The Guardian out to be leftist leaning. And I really can’t understand how Opinion can be attacked as being biased. It’s a section based on biased ideas since it is comprised of . . . opinions. . .

    And besides that, um editing? I like how at times sections aren’t capitalized “(opinion, news, Hiatus, Focus, sports, and Letter to the Editor)” and then later are capitalized “The least leftist section was Sports . . . On the other hand, both the letter-to-the-editor.” But that’s just pointing out editorial flaws that detract from the already low level of credibility that I find from this article.

    Also, making statements such as “At least we at the California Review have the decency to admit our political point of view” does nothing more than make the California Review seem as if they are trying to be “better than thou” and “flawless.”

    And @socal local, your comment “Perhaps because the Univ is near the Mexican border, as with most border High Schools, it is simply full of Mexican immigrants, both legal & illegal. They aren’t even on the same playing field because they want to make California into a faux, progressive version of Latino Hopey Changey, not just fruits & nuts. A waste of a college education going there.” is simply offensive. As of the 2010-2011 school year, UCSD is made up of 31% white, 59% Asian/American, and only 10% Mexican American/Chicano students (Studentresearch.ucsd.edu). And even if UCSD was comprised of primarily Latin immigrants, your comment makes you sound like nothing more than a racist bigot who believes people from other countries cannot possibly be as smart and are not on “the same playing field” as white dominated private schools. And this is coming from a Caucasian upper middle-classer, for the record.

    UCSD prides itself in taking in students from other countries and cultivating learning through foreign exchange programs and cultural learning, although we have seen through the events of the last few years (Compton Cookout, Koala scandal) that there is still a lot of work that needs to be done on the racial sensitivity front.

  30. I’m not so sure that UCSD is a “predominately liberal school” so much as a liberal-dominated school. But, assuming for a second that you’re correct, isn’t it particularly unethical for the taxpayer to be funding a politically biased state institution?

    Also, the numbers for 2011 are now 11% Mexican American, and 3% Latino (so ~14% Hispanic).

    The university itself constantly asserts that non-whites are not on the same playing field. I agree, that is bigoted. As our programs and policies that attempt to “level” the field.

    How on Earth can you point to a couple of events and suggest “there is still a lot of work that needs to be done”? Seriously. How many hundreds of thousands of people have come through or been associated with UCSD, over how many years, and how many incidents really have there been? Why should everyone else take the blame for the extremely rare actions of a very tiny subset (just assuming either event should be seen as “racist”)? That would be like blaming all African Americans ever for the fact that one stole my car radio (which did in fact happen). You mean… gasp!… that holding entire groups responsible for the actions of a very few is what leads to racism in the first place!??!!!?

    Amazing, these predominately liberal institutions and individuals have learned that “racism is bad, okay” but really have not grasped the morality behind the reasons WHY racism is bad.

  31. Annoyed With Ignorance · ·

    @Zoom: I rounded down on the numbers I saw since they were 10.3% and socal locol had referred in his comment to specifically Mexicans, so I didn’t add the Latino base in there, but adding that 4% doesn’t really change the numbers significantly in my eyes.

    “How on Earth can you point to a couple of events and suggest “there is still a lot of work that needs to be done”?

    I mean that there have been incidents of racism, which really is leading this conversation away from the article in question, and simply that there are uneducated people within the system. There probably always will be, but I mean that we need to continue educating people as to the unfairness of racism and hope that we can attempt alleviate it from our educational systems. And I’m not holding entire groups responsible, but the fact that it happens within the public institution does, whether we like it or not, on some level hold the system responsible. But like I said, this is besides the point of this article and was simply a response to socal local’s comment, nothing to do with any other comments or statements within the article.

    BTW I’m not entirely sure that exorbitant amounts of exclamation and question marks are really warranted to get your point across. =/ I understand what you’re saying just fine without them.

  32. I don’t think the biggest issue is a lack of understanding behind why racism is bad. I think that it’s a lack of understanding of what can be construed as racist. I think a lot of people believe they’re not guilty of such things, when in reality they’re unaware. It’s always, “I never thought…” after the fact.

  33. @Annoyed: Not seeing a huge difference between your use of an emoticon and my choice of using “exorbitant amounts of exclamation and question marks.” It’s just internet stylistic color. I wouldn’t use excessive punctuation in an article or an essay, anymore than you would include a sideways ASCII-art facial expression. Or “BTW” for that matter.

    As far as the ethnic numbers go, I was simply clarifying and updating. Both groups, Hispanic and whites, are technically “under-represented” in comparison to state population numbers, if that sort of thing matters to you. The total number of Hispanics in 2011 is 3,262 – which could easily mean plenty of “Mexican immigrants, both legal & illegal.” Although, I’d agree with you that it’s a huge assumption that there is a significant number of immigrants in comparison to native born Mexican-Americans. Don’t think it really qualifies as “racism” as you suggest. Although, a lot of out-spoken racial organizations do push a socialist “hopey changey” agenda on campus – it’s a bit of stretch to assume that all Hispanics on campus agree with the race-baiting and leftism of the orgs that claim to represent them.

    I’m curious what you mean, specifically, by “we need to continue educating people as to the unfairness of racism and hope that we can attempt alleviate it from our educational systems.” Often such attempts to “educate” are nothing more than programs to indoctrinate or brain-wash, political preaching masquerading as actual education. Also, which “we”? Does the state or the education system really have such a responsibility to alter morality, especially at the level of adults (and a few almost-adults)? Especially when such indoctrination attempts have a hypocritical, faulty premise – that only whites are privileged and racist – which in reality is as disgusting as any real, actual example of racist that you can come up.

    I fail to see how the system is any way responsible for the actions of individuals. The individuals are responsible for their own actions, racist or not. Less responsible are the taxpayers and students paying fees. Their money should not be wasted on indoctrination programs.

    @Hmm: the real trouble are the race-baiters convincing people that anything they classify as racism actually IS racism – or convincing people of color that they’ve been discriminated against even though they hadn’t felt they had, or ever really had.

  34. @Another Guardian Editor

    Zero? http://www.ucsdguardian.org/opinion/campus-should-explore-conservative-viewpoints/

    @Zoom

    Right as usual, especially on the “liberal-dominated” versus “majority liberal” part. There are a few very loud, very well-organized groups of liberal activists on the campus who are effective at portraying UCSD as majority liberal and seizing control of the financial redistribution levers through AS and the administration. Kudos to them for figuring out the system, but they get a lot of help from favorable administrators who love to see university administration expand at the expense of academics.

  35. Also, it’s impressive to see that the discussion here between Zoom, Annoyed, and Hmmm has been largely respectful and even enlightening.

    Why can’t a sane and fairly respectful discussion like this take place away from the anonymity of a comment thread? You know something’s wrong when the debate is more civilized and thoughtful only under the cloak of anonymity than in person.

  36. @Another guardian editor5

    Another guardian editor5 : “Let’s settle this once and for all. We publish all letters to the editor, unless it’s outright hate speech. …… I hope this answers any lingering questions you may have. Now please STFU”

    John: “@Another guardian editor5 – I know of several people who wrote letters last year and this year who never got published, one being my own. I didn’t know dissenting from the Guardian or critiquing the status-quo is “Hate Speech” these days.”

    YUP, NOW MY LINGERING QUESTIONS ARE DEFINITELY ANSWERED. THANKS JOHN.

  37. smell-a-rat · ·

    @Kudos
    Hmm.. so is another guardian editor5 playing it lose with the truth when he/she says they print everything or is John ?

    Well lets assume they do publish them all, then Gabriellas’s analysis suggests that the readership is much less liberally slanted than the paper – ie they are out of touch with the campus. If they do tend to pick more liberal letters like john suggest, that says …. well the same thing as my point above but even more so!

    When is the last time you saw an op-ed piice in the Guardian that expressed conservative views? Even respectable liberal papers give space for op-ed views they don’t agree with. Crappy free press ideals going on there if you ask me!

  38. proudconservativepatriot · ·

    i used to be left leaning until gabriella hoffman gave me the best BJ of my life. maybe she can suck everyone on the guardian’s dick for more conservative viewpoints and we can resolve this whole thing now

  39. Interesting article, but it doesn’t really leave a clear conclusion.

    Of course UCSD is liberal, it’s a public university in California. As such, it makes sense that its newspaper reflects the liberal bias of the liberally-biased student body and faculty.

    To try to “equalize” viewpoints through some sort of administrative action seems anticonservative, if you ask me. Sounds like the Fairness Doctrine.

  40. This university has sure has a lot of ZOGbots.

    All fight for ZOG now!

  41. sure has*

  42. Link exchange is nothing else however it is simply placing
    the other person’s webpage link on your page at appropriate place and other
    person will also do similar in support of you.

  43. You can definitely see your skills in the work you write.

    The world hopes for more passionate writers such as you who are
    not afraid to say how they believe. All the time go after your heart.

  44. Your means of describing everything in this post
    is in fact nice, every one be able to effortlessly know it,
    Thanks a lot.

  45. It’s an remarkable paragraph in favor of all the web users; they will take advantage
    from it I am sure.

  46. First off I would like to say fantastic blog! I haad a quick question in which I’d like too ask if you do not mind.
    I was curious to know how you center yourrself
    andd clear your thoughts before writing. I’ve had a difficult time clearing
    my mind in getting my ideas out. I do enjoy
    wrriting however it just seems like the first
    10 to 15 minutes are generally wasted just trying to figbure out how to begin. Any ideas or tips?
    Many thanks!

  47. I loved as much as you’ll receive carried out right here.
    The sketch is tasteful, your authored subject matter stylish.
    nonetheless, you command get bought an edginess over that you wish be
    delivering the following. unwell unquestionably come more
    formerly again as exactly the same nearly a lot
    often inside case you shield this increase.

  48. I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your site.
    It’s a very easy on the eyes which maoes it much more enjoyable foor
    me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a designer
    tto create your theme? Excellent work!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: