Tweet
Tainted coverage?
You be the judge --
Regarding the UH regents meeting on Tuesday, the Star-Bulletin reported:
"The meeting was interrupted briefly by protesters who were against the establishment of a Navy research center at UH.
The protesters, ringing a cow bell and blowing on a kazoo, performed a satirical skit announcing the coronation of Prince Yes, a reference to McClain's recommendation that the regents approve the University Affiliated Research Center.
The regents declared a recess and walked out of the room when the protesters began speaking."
Meanwhile, the Advertiser reported:
"McClain took the reins of the university in a time of turmoil after the ouster of Evan Dobelle, and in the nearly two years since has brought stability to the UH system. After his first-year review, McClain received praise from the regents for his leadership. During his tenure, he has led the university through tuition increases, a devastating flood on the Manoa campus and a proposal to establish a U.S. Navy university affiliated research center."
No Advertiser mention of the protest that caused the meeting to halt, and no mention of the fact that McClain recently TOOK A CONTROVERSIAL POSITION SUPPORTING THE UARC PROPOSAL, WHILE THE FACULTY HAS OPPOSED IT, AND THAT THE REGENTS ANNOUNCED THE NEXT DAY THAT HE WAS THEIR MAN. This doesn't necessarily prove cause and effect, but it's crucial context. And it's simply true and pertinent, no matter how any particular person feels about UARC. Why can't McClain's position even be mentioned?
And, of course, the Advertiser has never printed that their own publisher directly lobbied at least one regent to support the UARC. Doing it was unethical, but hiding it is really sleazy. I'm sorry, but this paper is rapidly losing its credibility over this issue. The omissions, the ridiculous editorials, the constant drone of planted letters, and the gratuitous military boosterism around such a controversial issue at a public university really add up to contempt for readers. It's sad, and it's scary that this is the mentality of our state's largest newspaper. The question is: why?
Regarding the UH regents meeting on Tuesday, the Star-Bulletin reported:
"The meeting was interrupted briefly by protesters who were against the establishment of a Navy research center at UH.
The protesters, ringing a cow bell and blowing on a kazoo, performed a satirical skit announcing the coronation of Prince Yes, a reference to McClain's recommendation that the regents approve the University Affiliated Research Center.
The regents declared a recess and walked out of the room when the protesters began speaking."
Meanwhile, the Advertiser reported:
"McClain took the reins of the university in a time of turmoil after the ouster of Evan Dobelle, and in the nearly two years since has brought stability to the UH system. After his first-year review, McClain received praise from the regents for his leadership. During his tenure, he has led the university through tuition increases, a devastating flood on the Manoa campus and a proposal to establish a U.S. Navy university affiliated research center."
No Advertiser mention of the protest that caused the meeting to halt, and no mention of the fact that McClain recently TOOK A CONTROVERSIAL POSITION SUPPORTING THE UARC PROPOSAL, WHILE THE FACULTY HAS OPPOSED IT, AND THAT THE REGENTS ANNOUNCED THE NEXT DAY THAT HE WAS THEIR MAN. This doesn't necessarily prove cause and effect, but it's crucial context. And it's simply true and pertinent, no matter how any particular person feels about UARC. Why can't McClain's position even be mentioned?
And, of course, the Advertiser has never printed that their own publisher directly lobbied at least one regent to support the UARC. Doing it was unethical, but hiding it is really sleazy. I'm sorry, but this paper is rapidly losing its credibility over this issue. The omissions, the ridiculous editorials, the constant drone of planted letters, and the gratuitous military boosterism around such a controversial issue at a public university really add up to contempt for readers. It's sad, and it's scary that this is the mentality of our state's largest newspaper. The question is: why?