I have frequently referred to journolism, which some might think is a misspelled. The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity; I use the term ‘journolism’ frequently when writing about media bias.

Now, thanks to a tweet from David Huber, an editor and writer at The College Fix, I found this, from the Columbia University student newspaper, the Columbia Daily Spectator:

Letter from the Editor: Why we published op-eds arguing against the mask mandate on campus

by Senem Yurdakul, Editorial Page Editor | Monday, February 28, 2022 | 2:02 AM EST

On February 8, we published a piece titled “Why can’t we move on from COVID-19?” The decision to publish the piece came after days of conversations among our staff on public discourse, freedom of speech, and our responsibility to our community.

Our mission at the Opinion section of Spectator is to reflect and direct campus and community discourse. But what does that even mean?

Reflecting campus discourse means being present in the spaces where discourse arises and evolves. It means being members of different student organizations, participating in class discussions, and listening to the people around us when they share their experiences as members of the Columbia community. It means avidly reading Columbia Confessions to find the opinions students might not otherwise find acceptable to voice out loud or with their names attached. It means witnessing the contemporary politics of our campus unfold around us, choosing not to remain bystanders, and bringing what we see into public dialogue.

It also means being aware that campus discourse resumes in our absence and acknowledging that there are spaces that we do not have access to, narratives that aren’t familiar to us, and stories that aren’t ours to tell. It is about coming to the office for all staff meetings and asking “Whose voices are we missing?” It is about knowing that just because certain opinions are not articulated in public, it does not mean that they are absent from campus discourse.

Heaven forfend! A student, at Columbia University, a liberal Ivy League school in liberal New York City, noting that there are people other than the #woke^[1]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading who have opinions that should be noted? As I responded to Mr Huber, “Not to worry: when they graduate and go to work for the @PhillyInquirer, they’ll find out that dissenting opinions are wholly unwelcome by editor Gabriel @escobarinquirer, publisher Lisa Hughes, and the rest of the #woke staff.”

But there’s more: Miss Yurdakul recognized that there are “certain opinions”, held by Columbia students, which are “not articulated in public.” Translation: expressing those opinions in public will result in negative consequences for those who speak them; that’s why sixteen University of Pennsylvania women’s swim team members had to keep their identities concealed. Of course, further down, Miss Yurdakul states that they “draw strict lines between hate speech and free speech,” so it’s entirely possible that, were the UPenn situation part of Columbia’s, those expressing the opinion that Will Thomas should not be allowed to compete athletically as a woman might be rejected.^[2]A site search for “Lia Thomas” turned up only one story about Mr Thomas’ participation in the Ivy League championships, and offered no opinions. The article did note the controversy … Continue reading

When we received Gabe Weintraub and Matt Keating’s pieces in our inbox, it was a clear indication to us that there is a present and ongoing discussion on masks within the student body. To have ignored these pieces because of their controversial takes would have been in direct defiance of our mission to reflect campus conversations. To have ignored the letters to the editor we have received by Ned Latham and Leslie A. Zukor in response to Weintraub and Keating’s pieces would have undermined our commitment to fair representation.

Miss Yurdakul put it out there: there is clearly a serious disagreement on Columbia’s campus about the mask mandates, but it is a debate which does not raise “hate speech” questions.

When, there is a second layer of our mission: directing campus discourse. When we publish an op-ed, letter to the editor, or column, we provide a platform for the writer’s story, voice, and argument. The engagement we have received in the past few weeks has allowed us to understand that the voices we amplify directly impact campus dialogue. That is a level of influence that we take incredibly seriously. We know that while our platform allows us to provide space for voices that are often institutionally marginalized and silenced, it can also create an echo chamber or worse, highlight harmful ideas if our process is hasty or heedless. As editors, we aim to ensure that our journalism does not harm our readers, our community, or our writers. We draw strict lines between hate speech and free speech. Our pieces undergo three rounds of editorial edits, three rounds of copy edits, and two rounds of edits by our managing editor and editor in chief. We are always asking ourselves and our writers what our reasons for publishing a piece are.

There are two very important parts of this paragraph. First, the Columbia Daily Spectator has far, far more editorial reviews than we see in the credentialed media these days; broadcast media have to get the news on too quickly, while newspapers have been cutting reportorial and editorial staff to the bone. When the Daily Spectator staffers get out into the real world, looking for journalism jobs, not only will they find disappointing salaries at the entry level, and bemoaning the fact that their opportunities are only at the Allentown Morning Call or the Lexington Herald-Leader, rather than The New York Times or Washington Post, but they’ll quickly see that what few editors there are, are a harried bunch who provide little oversight and too-cursory glances at their work. You can see this in the poor editing, incomplete journalism, and lousy grammar in so many newspapers.

But the second part is that they “aim to ensure that our journalism does not harm our readers, our community, or our writers.” This is what has led so many newspapers to censor the truth, to not report the news, or not report it fully, if telling the whole truth might, in the words of the Sacramento Bee, “perpetuat(e) stereotypes about who commits crime in our community.” The McClatchy Mugshot Policy worries that publishing police mugshots “disproportionately harms people of color and those with mental illness,” so they have a policy against it, and the Herald-Leader seems to make its exceptions to the policy when the charged offenders are white, to actually skew the truth.

Miss Yurdakul continued to state that they would continue to provide a platform for the opinions of others, which seems to be more than the Herald-Leader or Inquirer do, but I have to wonder about what the limits of what she, and others, at the Columbia Daily Spectator would impose? Would the Daily Spectator accept an opposing OpEd piece on whether biological males should be allowed to compete in women’s sports as ‘transgender women’, or would that be regarding as “harm (their) readers, (their) community, or (their) writers”? Would it be considered “hate speech”, and be put beyond the pale?

The New York Times had had, for decades now, the masthead blurb, “All the News That’s Fit to Print”, but the Times, among other great, and not-so-great, newspapers across this country have taken editorial decisions that some things, some actual news, some news that’s just politically incorrect, simply isn’t fit to print these days.

We’re seeing it every day, when The Philadelphia Inquirer declares itself to be “anti-racist” and then just plain doesn’t give its readers the news.

Miss Yurdakul, and her compatriots at the Columbia Daily Spectator, and at journalism schools across the country, are going to be the next people hired into the nation’s newsrooms, and some of them will last and become editors. Will they maintain Miss Yurdakul’s commitment to publish opposing viewpoints, to actually inform the public of the debates that are going on out there, or will they follow today’s line, and censor news that doesn’t fit their political views, and their ‘social justice’ goals?