The Concordian

The ability of the modern critic seems to continually worsen through the years.  Rather than expressing a reasoned opinion or a well-rounded evaluation, which reflects the meaning of the word, they are captious and push for arguments sake.

Contemporary critics write more for their benefit and promotion of themselves, instead of encouraging a strong review of the situation and providing a solution to the issue.  Critics are supposed to impose self-reflection, but have recently taken the role of entertainer or comedic relief.

Examples of supposed critics that resort to generalizations, poor investigative work, bad statistics, and false positives have become rampant in the media.

A recent article published by FanHouse addressed the NFL overtime rules and the need to change them.  The writer, David Whitley, criticized the current rules in support of a potential change that is currently being discussed around the League.  Though I have no complaint with Whitley’s position, I have issue with the manner in which he critiqued.

During his criticism of the current rules, Whitley presented statistics, on the relationship between a coin toss and the winning percentage for overtime games, which had no backing and were hypothetical at best.  He did so to prove his point, but it becomes a point more for arguments sake when there is no support.  His critique becomes invalid.

A similar situation of poor critique has recently been brought against the Concordian.  Certain critics have claimed that there is a lack of investigative journalism, a lack of comprehensiveness, or too many stories on corn hole tournaments. The critics express opinions that are without perspective.

They fail to realize that the “hard news” they seek is often unobtainable because the SGA, the president, or other institutions will not give straightforward answers to questions that are often asked.  In one such instance, when a staff writer went to SGA members for information, the writer was told to “come to the meetings” instead of being given answers.  Many other instances result in a “no comment.”

The “investigative portion of journalism” is taken seriously, but as students the power to get answers is often limited and we refuse to turn into a tabloid that spreads gossip.

As for comprehensiveness, a staff of twelve writers covers the wide range of stories that present themselves, but there are sometimes competing priorities or simply a lack of events on campus. Though, more often than not, there seems to always be a corn hole tournament scheduled.

Rather than acknowledging the problem, which is a large portion of the student body that does not care enough about journalism to become active, they pass blame to those that are involved. Critics resort to blogging and commenting, but rarely criticize constructively or actively.  Instead of understanding a situation or fixing it, they use words like “laughingstock” and justify their criticisms with past accomplishments.

As a former critic of the Concordian, I came to the paper and became an editor to help fix issues.  I took action and I am still trying to improve what I consider to be an important part of the university.

So if you want to criticize, you should do so constructively and take action, otherwise you would be better suited to manage a pizza joint because your lack of conviction makes you a “laughingstock”.

Article Tools