In response to Editorial: Are they leading by example?
Editor,
I am writing in response to the SGA case published in the 10/23 edition. I went back to read the original editorial that this whole thing is centered around, about the new Security Shuttle system, and I see where the blame should really lie.
The Plainsman staff failed their readers in the publishing of the original editorial. Yes, it's an editorial, and should be the opinion of the writer. But, many readers see things as fact, especially from a credible source such as The Plainsman, and it should not have been published without this full consideration.
The biggest fault in the original editorial is that it failed to even contact SGA for their side to the argument. It's no surprise that passions on the part of Smith and Weir were heated. Your staff knows what it's like for your work to go unappreciated, I'm sure. Smith and Weir just let their passions for improving Auburn get the better of them.
By being in the media, you know criticism comes with the game. What Smith and Weir did was not right, but SGA's work is always a continual process. Give constructive feedback to SGA's work, yes, but do not try to incite a witch hunt.
SGA loves feedback, as proven by their new AuburnAnswers.org website, where anyone can enter any feedback, positive or negative, that they may have. Perhaps recommend flooding the system specially built for criticism with criticism, instead of trying to start a barrage of angry calls.
Be aggressive in your reporting, but be fair. The Auburn student body needs fairness.
Sincerely,
An Auburn student
Drake Pooley is a cabinet member of the Student Government Association and Director of Academic Programs.
Pooley can be reached via email at dap0023@auburn.edu and on Twitter @DPoolAU
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
