Yellow journalism affects CSULB

By Matthew L. Green, On-line Forty-Niner

July 23,1998

Because of the Grunion's offensiveness, some Cal State Long Beach students, faculty and staff have become supporters of censorship. But before the Grunion's opponents etch their views in stone, they should examine five issues involving the suppression of the Union's satire page.

First, outspoken groups trying to influence others should expect criticism, even if it is unwarranted. People proclaiming good intentions - government officials, moral leaders and even God himself - anticipate criticism. Why should CSULB public figures be exceptions?

They should not be.

And like all targets of criticism, targets of the Grunion should be receptive to it, so they may highlight and improve their areas of weaknesses.

However, if false information is presented as being factual, they should take legal action.

Second, bad news exists, so get used to it.

Readers offended by the Grunion need to remember that CSULB is a public institution, a place to expose students to the realities of public life, not a place to shelter them from tragedy and humiliation.

The disrespectful and sensational articles found in the Grunion reflect the same type of journalism used by many popular magazines and newspapers today. Students should accept that tabloid journalism exists and will probably never disappear, so they should not waste their energy and sanity fighting this battle. Building immunity to negative opinions and facts should begin now, so later they will not be despondent or angry over a world they cannot change.

Third, every individual finds something offensive or wasteful. I assume the Union has received many letters of complaint concerning its offensive satire page. But that does not mean it will publish all of those letters. The Grunion's opponents should not automatically expect their letters to be published.

Because publication space is expensive, newspapers should give most, if not all, space to their writers, not to every citizen with a score to settle.

Still, individuals can fight back by distributing fliers and pamphlets or by contacting competing newspapers.

Besides the Union, some students would not want their Associated Students Inc. fees going toward other A.S.I.-funded activities. Some students may not want A.S.I. to sponsor religious or cultural events they do not attend. But doing this would limit the body of knowledge available to students.

As a public institution, CSULB should protect individuals by letting them decide what they should learn, not by letting the minority or the majority of students decide.

Students should be exposed to a variety of views. This way they are forced to think and to find their own values, making them thinkers instead of side-takers.

This brings me to my next point.

Grunion opponents label the Union's writers "amoral" and "unethical," assuming their values are the only values that exist.

But just as many systems of social ethics exist, many systems of professional ethics exist. Regardless of whether they should exist, they still exist.

And if these published views are not legally actionable, people should be more tolerant of them.

If the Union were an ethnic newspaper that published offensive satire that is acceptable in that culture, the people offended by it would have been more cautious about labeling the newspaper amoral, out of the fear of being called racists.

At CSULB, people should not only learn how to tolerate the values of other ethnic groups but also the values of other individuals. Doing this will help them interact more harmoniously with others.

Finally, the Union is a necessary instigator.

It keeps the CSULB community alert and stimulates the discussion of issues. God forbid if student apathy decreases and student participation in issues increases.

Matthew L. Green is a reporter for the Summer Forty-Niner.