my personal photo of the Ka Leo
There are so many copies around campus that never even gets picked up and read. It just sits there!
Conventional wisdom blame this declining interest to "the millenials being the digital generation who are only interested in Twitter, facebook, i-phones and blogs"
That is only part of the story!
You see, I was on the campus from 1999-2004 when I was an undergraduate student. I was a contributing opinion writer for the Ka Leo back then.
So what is the difference now?
Back then, the opinion articles were edgy, combative, confrontational, entertaining!
Now, it's boring as hell!
I don't blame the writers for this!
I BLAME THE EDITORS FOR THIS!
--------------
I know I'm going to sound like an "old man pining for the good old days" [even though I'm only 32] but bear with me on this one!
You see, when I first entered UH as a freshman in Fall 1999, the Ka Leo opinion section was THE MOST ENTERTAINING PART OF THE NEWSPAPER!
There would be verbal combat in almost every edition!
Opinion writers would be verbally combating each other!
The articles were so edgy, combative and controversial that the newspaper used to get TONS of ANGRY "letters to the editors", which made reading the Ka Leo even more entertaining!
One of the most entertaining writers was Lance Collins. That guy had no fear of being controversial, confrontational, combative and FUNNY AS HELL! He was like the Political Correctness Warrior with the Heart of the Prankster! I know, sounds like a strange combo, but it worked for him!
We had David McClard, who wrote the perspective of a juvenille fraternity boy, with the occasional serious stuff on the side!
We had David Parker experimenting with Objectivism/Libertarian, irritating the hell out of the campus leftist activists! And plus, his multiple verbal combats with Radical Left-Winger Devin Nordberg!
With all that going on, guess what I wanted to do in my 2nd semester at UH? Jump right in and write my own provocative articles!
And yep, get some hate-mail when reading "letters to editors" too!
I had classmates coming up to me, laughing at some of the angry "letters to the editors" responding to my articles!
THIS WAS WHAT MADE THE Ka Leo SO DAMN INTERESTING TO READ BACK THEN!
And as my undergrad years went on, there were additional provocative writers. There were frat boys, left-wingers, libertarians, neo-conservatives, feminists, you name it!
But not just that!
There were articles about drunken orgies! [dont look at me, I didn't write it!]
Lance Collins would have photo collages mocking political figures!
There were humorous photo collages posted on Valentine's Day that irritated feminist activists!
The administration officials and professors got mocked mercilessly [with real names mentioned] on editorials, comics and photo collages!
There were comics accussed of all the -isms of the world because the fictional characters would say really crazy things! [the real comic writer is actually an activist against racism, sexism and homophobia. But not every reader got the irony and satire of those comics]
None of that would be allowed on today's version of Ka Leo!
(in fact, you won't even find them on the Ka Leo wesbite. Just try typing "Lance Collins", "David Parker" or "Casey Ishitani". All controversial Ka Leo writers/artists from a decade ago, and you wont find the articles by or about them on the website!
It's like they're suppressing evidence that Ka Leo used to have a very provocative opinion section! They'll claim "technical difficulties" Yeah,right! )
------------
Have you looked at the opinion section of the Ka Leo lately?
It's been downsized!
Even worse, it's boring! It's no longer provocative!
The Opinions Section went from....................... being the most interesting section to............................ being the most boring section of the newspaper!
Something must have gone wrong between the end of my undergrad years (2004) to my start of my grad student era (2013).
Editorial policies have changed for the worse!
I know from experience that the current editors WILL edit out anything edgy and provocative from any editorial you can send them.
For example, my yesterday's blog post that was planned to be a Ka Leo article?
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2013/04/arm-our-campus-security.html
Well, here are some editor comments (highlighted in yellow)
ut what can they do if some crazy person [I would discourage you from using language like “crazy person,” it is not specific and therefore makes your argument seem nonspecific.] starts shooting people at random? Not much.
and
Sure, theY can call the police, but the police cannot secure every area on this island at once; they cannot be the first line of defense [They are the first line of real defense and they must be in order for your suggestion to make sense.].
And then also added this pile of horse manure
[Tim said: I like your idea, but I don’t like your argument. Giving guns to campus security is a HUGE deal, and I don’t feel like there is any pertinent research here. A country that is the armed minority in a region that hates it and an isolated incident in one of the best-functioning societies in the entire world are not good examples for an issue as complex as this.
Excuse me? "an isolated incident in one of the best-functioning societies in the entire world" ? That was the major point of my editorial ------ arm our campus security in case an isolated incident happens!
And I mentioned Israel just as an example of learning from other nation's experience! That was the other major point of my editorial
More horse manure from the editors
Who is going to do the background checks on the security guards? Those aren’t cheap, at least proper ones aren’t.
Aren't they already supposed to go through background checks?
I think you need to find a new example to replace Israel, right now national security and campus security are just apples and oranges.
I WAS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO CAMPUS SECURITY IN ISRAEL. Any reader who couldn't catch that is ridiculously stupid!
more nonsense from an editor
Also, shoot an email to CS and see what they have to say about this. Do they even WANT to have guns? How would it change their training and hiring procedures? How much would it cost them? Do THEY think they need guns, or is the police response time pretty good?]
Excuse me ? Why should I "shoot an email to CS"? How's that for bad grammar Miss Editor Sarah Nishioka?
And here is more evidence that todays editors are too chicken-crap about anything provocative
andBut the reality is that decades of calm had made Norwegian society complacent. It gave them the false illusion that they are too evolved to require an armed police or security force.
and terrorists willalwaysbe dedicated to winning the arms raceweapons and be willing to use them.
Yep, they crossed out stuff that is provocative in those 2 examples.
And more BS from the editors
I did do my research, I did cite my source, you just dont like the results!
. I would like to see more research and less fear-mongering.
And "less fear-mongering"? And you wonder why the current version of the Opinion section is boring as hell?
The great thought-provoking editorials of the old days always head some fear-mongering! Whether it was environmentalists mentioning the "gloom and doom of global warming" or the neo-conservatives mentioning the dangers of foreign terrorists, they all provoked the reader's hearts and minds!
------------
All I know is that if I sent the same article when Lance Collins was the editor, the only changes made would be grammar corrections and space trimmings!
Thought sometimes, if my viewpoint was different from Collins, he would add a strange title to my editorials [editors write the titles to make it fit the print version of the paper]
But I know for damn sure that Lance Collins would've published that editorials without making those stupid deletions and without all this Politically Correct nonsense todays editors are doing now!
Sheesh, even Jeremy Pippin, a grammar and citation freak of an editor, would've posted that article without all this stupid deletions and politically correct mumbo jumbo!
Same with Sean Akiu and Chris Mikesell, the last 2 editors I dealt with back in 2004.
Unlike today's editors, the opinion editors of the past weren't afraid of controversy! They embraced controversy! They would've published that article almost 95% like I wrote, and let the angry letters come in!
And today's editors dont even have much of a sense of humor either.
For example, from an article that I sent earlier this year on those stupid "Do It in 4" signs
If students have a job outside of campus, they may need to take less than 15 credits per semester. After all, they still need time to work, attend class, study, eat, sleep, as well as maintain social relationships with friends and family.And at least an hour a day of free time would be nice.
That would NEVER have been deleted a decade ago. Past editors would've appreciated a little sense of humor to relieve a tension of a serious article
And another example of the editors censoring anything provocative
Statements like those give the impression that this university cares more about RANKINGS (which are based on arbitrary criteria by outside "experts") than the actual lives of the students!
UH's priority shouldn't be about rankings (read: popularity contests for mainland "experts"), the priority should be about access to higher education for Hawaii's students.
Today's editors said those 2 crossed out paragraphs distracted from the focus of my editorial ! BULLCRAP! I was anticipating opponent responses to my other points! That's what previous editors encouraged us to do! That's what opinion writers do! Yeah, I did some provocative statements in those 2 crossed out paragraphs.It was meant to shine a light on my opponent's viewpoints via exaggeration! It was not meant to be taken literally! No educated person (and this is a university) would take every statement literally!
No educated person would expect every opinion article to only have literal statements!
So yeah, todays editors are humorless folks with no sense of irony. They want every sentence to be something taken literally. They are afraid to put stuff out there that is provocative and combative!
Today's editors may be experts on grammars and formats, but they are NOT experts in thought provoking debates. They are experts in controversy avoidance and staleness! Any sense of rebelliousness and subversiveness is sniffled by the (ahem, ahem) opinion editors!
And you wonder why the current Opinion section is boring as hell?
----
But maybe I am sounding like an old guy (I'm only 32) pining for the good old days of the Y2K era! Maybe the whole thing about college newspapers having provocative, combative editorials are just a relic of a time when rap-metal ruled MTV, when TheRock and Stone Cold ruled the wrestling rings, and a whole bunch of Animal House imitators (ie American Pie, etc) ruled the theatres.
Maybe I am sounding like that NOFX song "What's the Matter with the Kids
http://www.metrolyrics.com/whats-the-matter-with-kids-today-lyrics-nofx.html
There's something wrong with the kids in my neighborhood
They always listen to moms
They disregard civil disobedience
They'd rather do what they're told
They don't drink or f--- or fight
They stay home and read, expanding their minds
Yeah, there's something wrong with the kids in my cul de sac
Their always goin' to church
They dress well and they're speaking articulate
They show each other respect
They're never late, they don't smoke or break rules
They eat right, they study hard, they like school
There's something wrong with the kids in my neighborhood
