Quest for truth requires writers—and their readers

April Reiter

mast editor-in-chief

The Mast set out this year with a range of lofty goals—to bolster the online presence, to increase writer–editor communication, to get in touch with The Mast’s history, and, recently in February, to concentrate on ensuring accuracy in our newsprint.

Some goals, like improving our Web site, were attained. But some, like the pursuit of perfect accuracy, equality and truth within our pages, were not.

This last goal is our fundamental calling as journalists. After all, the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, published on the SPJ Web site, teaches “public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

This battle to always pursue truth is something all journalists must contend with in the media, but it is also something we can work toward as a community. The burden and the privilege to seek the truth thus not only falls on our shoulders at the Mast, but on those of our readership—the PLU community.

One example, a shady time in Mast history, illustrates how the truth can be obscured if only one opinion is considered.

I was made aware of it when Jake Paikai, Mast Webmaster, showed me a stack of photocopied papers compiled by professor Tom Campbell for a Harmony Pride Week event. The stack contained a selection of Mast and Tacoma News Tribune coverage surrounding the 1993 launch of Harmony and a controversial editorial written by the editor-in-chief of The Mast in 1996.

In her March 8 editorial “Homosexual supporters losing sight of people focus,” the editor took a stand against something she felt was wrong on campus—“that with the excessive number of homosexual-based programs sponsored by PLU we are creating an atmosphere where students no longer feel comfortable voicing their [anti-homosexual] beliefs for fear of condemnation.” Professing her belief in a literal translation of the Bible, she said she supported diversity, but not when “we must accept the lifestyle of an individual when it goes against our conscience and beliefs.”

Somehow she did not realize that her own observations were flawed. She could not see that society had afforded her, and other heterosexuals, a strong confident voice of legitimacy while those of the queer community had historically been repressed and silenced, overtly and subtly. She also disregarded the impact they felt when they were told their feelings were in some way fundamentally wrong.

Looking at the work of this spectral figure, one of my honored-by-default predecessors, I was shaken to the core. I felt the harsh reality and tried to understand the fact that 12 years ago, a Mast editor felt the need to tout anti-gay ideas in my university newspaper.

I disagreed with the editor’s publishing of this editorial, but after some pondering, I realized that the 1996 Mast had done something right in the wake of its mistake, something every newspaper can and should do. Instead of offering one narrow opinion and shutting the door, it had freely offered its pages as a forum for all the various reactions to the editorial.

Like The Mast of 1996, this year’s Mast has also struggled with inaccuracies and the pursuit of the truth. Our mistakes have not been as earthshaking as those of 1996, but we have printed incorrect facts, like the incorrect faculty salary figures in the Feb. 22 issue. We have referred to he’s as “she’s.” We’ve labeled associate professors as assistant professors. We have published mistakenly plagiarized information, such as with Liz Anderson’s coverage of the wreck that killed Brady Freeman and Jocelyn Denham.

And, similar to the 1996 Mast, we have opened our pages to responses. We’ve included our e-mail addresses to increase our accessibility for concerned readers. And we’ve remained committed to the idea that an article or column is simply the beginning of a long and complex dialogue between reporters and our readership.

In this way, we have undertaken the quest for the real truth, the complex, assailable, nebulous truth, which can only be found when considering every possible perspective, then taking a look at five more, then five more, then five more.

Every newspaper, every medium in the world committed to a journalist’s code of ethics will also struggle with this quest for the truth.

And as the semester ends, the 2007-2008 staff will pass this incredible responsibility onto next year’s staff in the hopes that they can see our perspectives, try to understand our decisions, and continue to learn from the past to shape a better paper for next year.

Next year will herald a few changes for the paper. Instead of one chief editor, co-editors-in-chief Alisyn Franetich and Maren Anderson will lead. They plan to emphasize the further improvement of the online presence and supporting sustainability at PLU.

These goals will mean The Mast will look a bit different next year. The plan is for four pages to be cut (one each from Sports and Arts and Entertainment and two from News). This cut will make room for two new online editors to work with the wWebmaster to provide more daily content accessible to anyone in the world with an Internet connection.

But, as this year and the 1996 Mast show us, the responsibility of next year’s paper will not rest on their shoulders alone. The burden of the search for fairness, accuracy, and the most complete truth also belongs to the PLU community.

The readership of The Mast is encouraged to see this document as a forum for ideas, as a platform to tell stories sometimes ignored or add another facet to the complex truth. Students shape the content that goes in these pages and online, but they also have a responsibility to keeping the conversation alive once it is published.

Take on this responsibility at PLU and in the greater community with gratitude for those who provide media coverage and with the knowledge that you, too, are an integral part of the search for truth.