The last few months have been rough ones for the folks at University College’s Gargoyle newspaper.
Their latest edition on January 21 was the first one since Jewish student group Hillel accused them of anti-Semitism due to a controversial editorial note to one of the contributors in November. After that the Gargoyle went out of production until the situation was investigated. Friday’s edition of the Gargoyle contains none of the usual tongue-in-cheek content that the paper is known for, but is devoted to explaining the course of events and what the Gargoyle staff has done to remedy the damage that the comment made.
In a forum on Friday in the Junior Common room at UC the staff read their new constitution to the small group of Gargoyle editors. Hillel public relations co-ordinator Johanna Herman was present, and so was Nona Robinson, UC’s co-ordinator of student life. A couple of students also attended. The forum provided an opportunity to discuss the new constitution and direction of the Gargoyle.
Part of the reason that the controversial editorial note ever went to print may have been a lack of organization concerning whose job it was to check the final content of the paper before it hit the newsstand. Aaron Kimberely, part of the masthead and a features editor for the last three years, said that the Gargoyle’s old constitution was not written by current editors and no one really knew it existed. The Gargoyle staff is now ready to move forward with a new constitution that covers who is in charge of checking content and having learned some valuable lessons.
Kimberley said that he and his fellow staff members were “absolutely and without question” relieved that the whole incident was now behind them. After sensitivity training classes for the staff and months of apologies, Kimberley said that for the Gargoyle “The important thing is that we’ve resolved it with Hillel.” Unfortunately he feels that the students at University College may not have cared so much, which may have been reflected in the poor turnout of students at the forum.
Changes at the Gargoyle will not be overt. “The office will be different. We will have a per-edition editor-in- chief that is specifically responsible for checking content.” Now they will have production meetings that will have a new editor each time. “That more reflects the way that the Gargoyle has worked in the past.”
The lesson learned above all, says Kimberley, is “the difference between the intent of our writing and the way that it is being read…satire isn’t satire unless it can be understood as such by the readership in general.” From now on they will be more careful about the humour that they print because, as Kimberley concluded, “in-jokes don’t function as credible journalism.”
For Hillel’s part Johanna Herman says that she is satisfied with the work that the Gargoyle has done to redeem itself and is looking forward to a new and improved newspaper. “I feel that they have done a good job in addressing the issue. They seem excited about it.” She wishes that more students had attended the forum because she says she likes to know what students are thinking about at her college.
