2008 Woodie Awards
Letter to the Editor
Boxer was stolen
Issue date: 4/11/08 Section: Opinion
This letter is a response to the Index's March 14th unsigned opinion article, "Boxer stolen - are you sure?" that is listed as the opinion of the entire Editorial Board.
I'm not angered by the question the article raises, even though it questions the possibility that my fraternity and I are lying about Boxer's whereabouts.
Had a journalist contacted me about this story, I would have gladly answered their questions. The story, for instance:
A Gamma Sigma brother was out taking pictures with local store owners to raise money for trivia contest prizes. While he was taking them, two guys ran up. One grabbed him and the other grabbed Boxer. Moments later, the assailants were gone.
Our brother called me almost immediately, out of breath, reaching my voicemail. When I first heard it, I was in disbelief.
Eventually, the idea settled. Boxer had gone the same way we had managed to capture him ourselves.
At the end of the day, I'm not happy Boxer was stolen from us, but I am happy that someone decided to continue the tradition.
The Pacific Index did not seek me out for comment or to fact check.
Instead, they printed both a regular and an opinion article about the theft, the latter of which mentioned me by name.
Neither warranted contacting either me or the person who was actually there when it happened.
They simply printed the question as an editorial based on rumor and conjecture.
Apparently, the Editorial Staff of The Pacific Index can assume that Boxer was "taken from Croshere" on "last Saturday."
It was a Friday, I didn't have Boxer, and I wasn't there when it happened.
I asked Billy Gates, The Pacific Index Editor in Chief, for comment on why he felt this opinion article was acceptable without contact. He responded, "Editorials, by nature, are meant to raise questions to be answered…all we did was ask a question."
As I've said, I welcome this and any other questions. I'm glad to answer them, but professionals should contact me and ask me on the record.
The alternative is intentionally offending your readership to the point that they must respond by editorial. It works, I suppose, but it is sloppy journalism and doesn't reflect well on the school we all represent.
Dean Croshere
I'm not angered by the question the article raises, even though it questions the possibility that my fraternity and I are lying about Boxer's whereabouts.
Had a journalist contacted me about this story, I would have gladly answered their questions. The story, for instance:
A Gamma Sigma brother was out taking pictures with local store owners to raise money for trivia contest prizes. While he was taking them, two guys ran up. One grabbed him and the other grabbed Boxer. Moments later, the assailants were gone.
Our brother called me almost immediately, out of breath, reaching my voicemail. When I first heard it, I was in disbelief.
Eventually, the idea settled. Boxer had gone the same way we had managed to capture him ourselves.
At the end of the day, I'm not happy Boxer was stolen from us, but I am happy that someone decided to continue the tradition.
The Pacific Index did not seek me out for comment or to fact check.
Instead, they printed both a regular and an opinion article about the theft, the latter of which mentioned me by name.
Neither warranted contacting either me or the person who was actually there when it happened.
They simply printed the question as an editorial based on rumor and conjecture.
Apparently, the Editorial Staff of The Pacific Index can assume that Boxer was "taken from Croshere" on "last Saturday."
It was a Friday, I didn't have Boxer, and I wasn't there when it happened.
I asked Billy Gates, The Pacific Index Editor in Chief, for comment on why he felt this opinion article was acceptable without contact. He responded, "Editorials, by nature, are meant to raise questions to be answered…all we did was ask a question."
As I've said, I welcome this and any other questions. I'm glad to answer them, but professionals should contact me and ask me on the record.
The alternative is intentionally offending your readership to the point that they must respond by editorial. It works, I suppose, but it is sloppy journalism and doesn't reflect well on the school we all represent.
Dean Croshere
Be the first to comment on this story