The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

59° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

    Mail Bag

    Newspaper falls short of ‘journalistic excellence’

    I am glad to see the Daily Wildcat has once again raised the journalistic bar of excellence for all college newspapers across the country. Although I thought the editing skill of printing every letter of complaint about the abortion display was genius enough, the front page on Feb. 11 was a virtuoso of bonafide journalism.

    All sarcasm aside, what were you thinking when you put to press this issue? Sure, adding flair to stories is something that sells papers, but there is a point where it makes the periodical trivial. The incessant use of puns on the front page is something more akin to high school papers. “”Schools waiting for FACT action”” is a joke. So-called “”attention getters”” died with the five-paragraph essay format of years past.

    But, no, I’m not just upset at the poor literary skills employed by the Wildcat. Did you not proofread the language used in the headlines? As printed, they showcase two extremely juvenile double entendres. In trying to pun another story, Robbie Eller is now scoring with a minor who happens to be in sports. Additionally, it can be read that an unknown party is selling their genitalia to get “”a-head.”” Either way you look at it, these are doomed for the Tonight Show’s “”Headlines”” segment.

    This is extremely unbecoming of a newspaper whose clips are used to propel potential journalists at the UA into internships at other newsrooms. But hey, the good thing about having a daily is that tomorrow always brings the possibility that the Wildcat will become a good newspaper.

    Alexander Vega

    journalism junior

    Freedom of speech doesn’t excuse ‘propaganda’

    Being a member of the Jewish community, I am very upset and disappointed that Gabriel Schivone’s article, although an opinion article, was allowed to be published. (“”Closer look at Gaza crisis raises disturbing questions,”” Feb. 19, 2009) One of the most important aspects of good journalism is the necessity to get the facts straight.

    This article should not have been published because the fact of the matter is that he fails to address factual information. I believe that if he had indeed included correct information, his article would have no merit. As an American, I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but there are guidelines. I consider this piece of information propaganda.

    The misuse of information only adds to a conflict that needs to be resolved. I am ashamed that the Arizona Daily Wildcat, a school paper respected by many, has degraded itself tremendously. I hope that this serves as a lesson that the editors must read the opinions before posting them to see if they are accurate or not.

    Mark Mason

    pre-business sophomore

    Column deserves plaudits for highlighting ‘harrowing’ facts

    I am happy to thank the Wildcat for publishing Gabriel Schivone’s recent critique of Israel’s harrowing assault on Gaza. While published comments have been “”balanced,”” I hope that readers will recognize the motivation for Schivone’s unwavering stance and refusal to defend Israel’s dubious motivations – that this is not a matter of opinion. The oft-overlooked issue of proportionality (one hundred Gazans slaughtered, fifty of them civilians, for every one Israeli) readily obviates the only reasonable posture. To paraphrase a not-terribly-old adage, you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

    While many readers may instinctively wish to stand with Israel, they would be cautious to recall Israel’s behavior during their most recent massacre: the coercion of Gazan civilians to act as combat zone scouts for Israel, violating international accords; the destruction of UN food stores and blockade of humanitarian aid from entering Gaza (the latter occurs even during “”peace”” time); pre-bombing leaflets that drove hundreds of Gazan families to occupy shelters that Israel later shelled. While the deaths of 13 Israelis during the war are all tragedies, such behavior is not an equivalent response.

    Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recognized as much in his promising of “”harsh and disproportionate”” retaliation to Gaza’s firing of ten rockets Feb. 1 that injured three people and killed no one. As I write this, I sit at Epic Café on Fourth Avenue. I just overheard a conversation in which an Israeli man quipped, “”If I hit you, will you succumb to me? If I hit you, you will resent me. If I kill you, will your son respect me? If I kill you, your son will try to kill me.”” My greatest hope is that those words can be understood not only by the readership of this paper, but by the tragically myopic policymakers in the Middle East and in Washington. I hope Gabe Schivone will continue to broadcast them.

    Craig Metcho

    UA alumnus, 2007

    Column would have been improved by more information

    Tuesday’s article about Gaza sported a blatant anti-Israel agenda. Here are the facts. Israel left Gaza in 2005 as a sign of peace. Unfortunately, the terrorist leadership used Gaza as a launching ground for Qassam rockets and Katyusha missiles.

    The article left out Hamas’s dramatic escalation of rocket fire. Not only does Hamas target Israel’s civilian population, but they also make an effort to endanger their own population of civilians. Hamas knows Israel only attacks the terrorists, and therefore elects to base their terrorism out of mosques, schools, and even hospitals for the purpose of maximizing casualties. Israel’s defensive response endangered Israeli soldiers in order to minimize Palestinian casualties.

    The article supported people who wage war on civilians at the expense of their own women and children. People are entitled to their opinions, but let’s be honest, reality does not support the author’s claims. Besides, why do the tragedies of black September, or Hamas’s public torture and murder of Palestinian civilians, or the economic ruin that Lebanon has kept Palestinian refugees in not outrage the columnist more than Israel’s defensive measures. Could it be that he hates Israel more than he loves the Palestinians? He claims America’s support of Israel is bad for the Palestinians; this is simply not true. Hamas is dedicated to war. Israel is a nation that on numerous occurrences offered land, statehood, peace, and other concessions asking only for peace in return. Terror has been the response.

    I am not suggesting abandoning the Palestinians; I am simply stating that Hamas does not want peace and supporting Hamas is the best way to make sure there will never be peace. Supporting Israel, on the other hand, is the best step towards peace one could make. Even when forced to defend itself against terrorists, Israel still provides aide to the injured civilians, sending medical supplies into Gaza and bringing the injured into Israeli hospitals. America’s support for Israel, despite being in America’s best interest, is also in the best interest of Palestinians who would benefit from the dismantling of Hamas and the installation of a responsible government who wants statehood, economic opportunity, and most of all peace.

    David Wills

    pre-business sophomore

    Israel’s situation deserves our understanding, support

    For the past 60 years, the country of Israel, which is about the size of New Jersey, has struggled to defend itself and its citizens – which include Jews, Christians and Muslims – from the attacks of terrorists and hate-filled countries like Iran who want to “”wipe Israel off the map.”” A few weeks ago Israel took action and responded to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip that had been occurring for the past eight years. For eight years, Hamas, a terrorist organization which charter clearly states its main goal and purpose is to “”eliminate Israel”” has been responsible for firing thousands of rockets into cities and populated areas of Israel. Hamas targets innocent civilians, schools, and children as their victims. While it is almost impossible to walk away with no casualties during a battle, Israel’s goal was not to destroy the cities and communities in Gaza, nor was it to kill innocent men, women, and children, and it certainly was not to have control over Gaza. Israel’s goal was to defend itself against the terrorist acts of Hamas and to put an end to Hamas’ reign of terror on the people of Gaza and Israel.

    Schivone writes about the disturbing questions that are raised in the Gaza crisis, but one that he forgot to mention is one that disgusts me. What kind of people use their own civilians, women and children as human shields?

    Think about this: If Mexico even considered shooting rockets into Tucson, or California, or Texas, I guarantee you that the United States government would not think twice about responding with military force, much less put up with it for eight years. And I can even bet you that Israel would be there to back up the United States in a heartbeat. If the U.S. really wants to put an end to terrorism in the Middle East, the answer is not to criticize Israel for defending themselves. The answer is to put a permanent halt to terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda, which continue to pose a threat to Israel, the United States, and democracies worldwide!

    Aaron Jacobs

    media arts sophomore

    More to Discover
    Activate Search