I shouldn't even be blogging at the moment. I've practically squandered my evening as is. However, as long as I'm being unproductive, I thought I'd take a moment to vent about a decidedly bad turn of events.
As you know if you've been reading, I've found more than a few bones to pick with the Daily Northwestern. They were gracious enough to print my first editorial letter, but the second was rejected. The reason, they claimed, was that they only printed one per student per quarter. Whether intentional or not, there is no way of finding out about this until they send in one too many letters. I have my suspicions about a desire to avoid criticism, but we'll hold off on that for a lack of evidence. I can always post my thoughts as comments on their editorial articles online.
Last week, however, the Daily added a new policy for online feedback. Since they are having trouble managing such "high volumes of posts," they are now instituting a "one-week limit" for postings to articles.
What does that even mean? You can only post on an article for one week? You can only post on an article after one week?
Since they moderate comments before allowing them to appear on the website, I can only assume that they must receive hundreds that don't make it to the web. I mean, I generally see fewer than ten comments per day (and most days less than five), so that would be the only explanation to make sense.
That is, unless, they are actually quite disinterested in receiving critical feedback from their readers, so they're limiting the amount of feedback they'll actually receive.
This is, in my opinion, part of the larger problem of the media insulating itself from the people it purports to be informing. Why should we be so interested in hearing what they have to say when they have no interest in hearing what we have to say?
Hmph. Thank God for the internet, the last bastion of unadulterated free speech left in this world. Well, that is unless the UN and so many of its member states get their grubby hands on it.