Home > Insight

Two words that cost too much

An editorial in a colleague’s paper has garnered massive media attention and has sparked freedom of speech discussions nationwide. But at what cost to the publication?

An editorial that appeared in the Sept. 21 issue of the Rocky Mountain Collegian, the student-run newspaper for Colorado State University, boldly read, “Taser this…Fuck Bush.” The editorial was in large type and took up half of a broadsheet page.

The four-word editorial was in response to an incident involving a student at the University of Florida who was Tasered by campus police after disrupting a forum hosted by Sen. John Kerry.

The editorial has caused madness among many people and has put Editor-in-Chief J. David McSwane under intense fire, and deservedly so. According to McSwane, the editorial was meant to get students thinking about free speech.

“We wanted people to understand that free speech is something we should talk about,” McSwane told CNN. “We felt that this campus, for one reason or another, has been really apathetic. Too quiet. We felt that the best way to spark that dialogue was to exercise it ourselves.”

Well, McSwane, mission accomplished. And in case you were unaware, you exercise your right to free speech every time you print an issue. This was not a tactic used to spark freedom of speech discussions. It was a childish, immature and self-serving act from somebody who enjoys the sound of his own press clippings, an egomaniac grasping for attention. It was a cheap ploy to use an expletive in the publication, like a child who curses just to curse. An attempt to say “look at what we can do.” The necessity to be different and make a statement has only cursed him as he cursed President Bush.

The question is not whether Mc- Swane had the right to say “Fuck Bush” in an editorial – because he did without question – but whether it was necessary? Is it worth the negative image that will blanket your school and publication? Is it worth the possible loss of thousands of dollars in pulled ads? Is it worth your job?

It’s not. It was an unnecessary risk that cost the publication thousands of dollars in lost advertisements, a risk that could cost McSwane his job and the pay of members of his staff, but more importantly, a risk that has tarnished the image of what was an outstanding collegiate publication.

McSwane is in a position of power that has the ability to evoke thought and promote change, and he has abused that power by publishing an inane and ridiculous column that contained only four words. Maybe if it was a headline to an editorial followed with some reason I could understand the decision. But it was not; it was a lackadaisical attempt to be shrewd. He was lazy and unable to construct an eloquent piece that conveyed the same message, so he settled for the easy road, the road taken by amateurs.

What’s really sad and utterly disappointing about the whole situation is that McSwane was no hack journalist. In high school he was a prodigy in the fi eld of journalism. He posed as a pot-smoking high school dropout that wanted to join the Army. He tape recorded a recruiting officer saying that the officer could get him a fake diploma and a kit that would help McSwane pass a drug test. This led to a serious investigation into bad recruiting practices. It was brilliant. But it was to no avail, as he has now trashed any hopes of landing a job outside of a tabloid rag.

He goes from pulling off an excellent form of investigative journalism to running trash and destroying any credibility he once had.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for freedom of speech and freedom of the press – that’s why I’m in this business. But not at the expense of my credibility or the image of the school and publication I have been charged with representing. McSwane has the right to put expletives where he sees fi t and to run whatever he deems essential and important, but this was an immature and pointless move.

All of this could have been easily avoided if an actual editorial was written about students needing to exercise their right to free speech. It could be done in 500 words, and if it’s 500 good words it would have actually accomplished the intended goal.

Free speech comes at a cost, but McSwane may end up paying a price that is too high.