Opinion and fact: There's a difference

I believe that some of The Greyhound's readers need to make a distinction between "opinion" and "fact."

"Fact" would be the article that ran on the front page of The Greyhound on Feb. 8 regarding SGA President KellyCrossett's party. The editors who ran the story acknowledged that they did not have all the facts but as many as they could get, which they then verified and published.

So was Crossett wrong in throwing that party? That is a matter of opinion. It seems, judging from the letters to the editor in last week's issue, that some people are of the opinion that she did nothing wrong. Others, such as my colleague and personal friend Nick Brown, are of the opinion that she was wrong to throw the party. He wrote a column in the Opinions section stating so. This was his opinion. This was not fact.

Now, you may be wondering why I keep repeating opinion over and over again. I am doing so because I think some readers, especially two who wrote rather scathing letters about Nick's article in last week's issue, don't know about the distinction I mentioned before between "opinion" and "fact."

Just because Nick Brown or any other opinions writer, including myself, says something does not mean that it is fact. It also does not mean, in any sense, that our opinion is The Greyhound's opinion.

Clearly the two students who wrote the letters I mentioned do not realize these things and threw around serious terms such as "tabloid," "bias," and "libelous." I don't know if they realize how serious those words are to journalists. Those are the kind of words that ruin careers, and it is unfortunate that both students seem somewhat ignorant of their meanings.

One of the students called both the story about the party and Nick's article (which, remember, are two very different things) "tabloid fodder." The other likened The Greyhound to The Star, an infamous tabloid publication.

Um, last time I checked, the story wasn't about a devil baby being sighted at the party and then escaping with Bigfoot in a U.F.O. This is a newspaper. Its job is to report stories that have an impact on the Loyola College community. Crossett is a com-munity figure because of her political position; thus, anything that may have an impact on her job or her character makes a story that deserves to be put in print. A party at a student residence where there are minors consuming alcohol after paying a cover charge is not an unusual occurrence here on campus, I'll admit. But because it was Ms. Crossett throwing it, it makes a good story. Sorry, but that's how journalism works.

It's the person, not the incident, which sometimes makes a story newsworthy. Choking on a pretzel is not newsworthy. President Bush choking on a pretzel is (and is also, in my opinion, very amusing).

So that's why the editors' decision to run the story was not one that makes this publication worthy of the reputation as a tabloid.

Now, on to Nick's article; I don't necessarily agree with every thing he said in it, but believed it was very well-written and told him so. As for my personal opinion on the issue of Crossett's party, I believe the story is newsworthy, but I do not believe it is enough to cause a change in SGA leadership. After all, bringing legal music downloading to campus is quite the accomplishment, and I commend Crossett for it. I also commend the SGA for bringing successful venues such as Chris Carrabba and Straylight Run to campus for Loyolapalooza, and I believe doing so redeems them for their failure to book a band for the fall concert (which, to be fair, was not Crossett's fault).

That's my opinion. Now does that mean that because I somewhat support the SGA that The Greyhound does? No, but it also doesn't mean that The Greyhound is biased against the SGA just because Nick wrote an anti-SGA article. The students who wrote those two letters should acquaint themselves with the difference between the bias of an individual and the bias of a publication.

Finally, I believe the most serious thing one of these students did was call Nick's article "libelous." Libelous? Are you kidding me? Using that term to describe a journalist and his work is not a laughing matter. That kind of thing destroys one's credibility and reputation, and, difference of opinion aside, it was entirely unfair of that student to label Nick and his article as such.

In the end, I guess it was to be expected that the story about. Crossett's party and Nick's article would generate a lot of criticism. That's just how it goes for writers and journalists, I guess. It's not a pretty job, but, whether you agree with our articles or not, someone's got to do it.