To the Daily:
On Jan. 22, the Daily's lead editorial ("Generous Gift") began with the statement that "The Turkish government recently offered the University a $1 million grant to fund a professorship for Turkish studies at the University's Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies." The editorial also stated that "the University's only Turkish studies professor" would be "retiring in May (1999)," with the result that "Turkish studies at the University could easily become a relic of the past."
The Daily did print a brief correction Monday. But I need to emphasize that both these statements are false. While the University has contacted officials of the Turkish government regarding the possibility of creating a new professorship in Turkish studies, as of this date there has been no offer or commitment of funds on the part of the Turkish government for this initiative. Prof. James Stewart-Robinson of the Department of Near Eastern Studies is planning to retire in the near future, but he is not by any means the only faculty member active in this area. The new professorship, if it is ever created, is meant to be added to those which already exist at the University in Turkish studies.
The editorial also attributed statements to "University officials" and "administrators" regarding this matter. To my knowledge, no University officials or administrators have been contacted by the Daily about this. The Daily appears to have been paraphrasing an article that appeared in The Detroit News on Dec. 29, 1998. The journalist who wrote the News article did speak at length with various University representatives, including me. That article did not, however, state or imply that a gift of $1 million or any amount had already been offered by the Turkish government.
The editorial's specific recommendations in the editorial do not present difficulties. The University will not permit any intrusion into academic decisions in regard to this or any other chair. The point at issue here is that the Daily has an obligation to check facts and sources carefully, especially on the editorial page. Please act in accordance with this obligation in the future.
Michael Bonner
Director, Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies
To the Daily:
I'm getting tired of hearing about how this article offended me, and how that article insulted my grandmother. About half the time, the complaint is legitimate. The other half of the time, it's just dumb or nit-picky. This letter speaks in particular to Jeff Ringenberg's criticisms regarding the Daily's film reviewers, who seem not to consider the average schmoe when writing their reviews ("Film reviews do not help students," 1/25/99).
I'm not a film student and I'm not Fellini, but my understanding of a film critique's purpose must differ vastly from Ringenberg's. A film critique is meant to point out elements in a film that stand out as good or bad, inspiring or lame or thought-provoking or mind-numbingly inane. It doesn't set out to change your opinion that Leo DiCaprio was just dreamy in "Titanic" or that "Speed 2" was totally bitching. I know that no number of reviews will ever convince me that "The Lion King" was anything other than hyped-up, toy industry-driven celluloid poop. Hey, your preferences are your own. You like Tarantino or you think he's a putz. You find counting sidewalk cracks enriching to your understanding of a film or you just "like to look at the pretty pictures." That's your business.
Movie critiques are written by people. People have opinions, which inevitably sneak into their writing. If you don't want to read an opinion that just might (gasp!) differ from your own, don't read the damned article. Yes, I'm aware of the irony here. And don't tell an arts reviewer to pander to your appreciation of mainstream entertainment.
If you want to complain about something in the Daily, there's plenty of opportunity. You can complain about how an article was so poorly written that you'd think it was translated from Manx Gaelic by a chimpanzee. You can call attention to any number of grammar mistakes. You can even say that that the guy writing this editorial is a big, fat moron. Just don't try to demand that your conventional views be considered in writing an art critique. Well, you can demand it, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
Rob Martin
University alumnus
To the Daily:
I am writing in response to The Michigan Daily headline of Jan. 21 that reads "Clinton's counsel refutes 2 articles."
I am saddened to say that through this headline, the editors of The Michigan Daily have established a new low standard of yellow journalism.
In particular, I would like to address the definition of the word "refute" as found in Webster's New World Dictionary:
refute: 1. to prove (a person) to be wrong; confute. 2. to prove (an argument or statement) to be false or wrong, by argument or evidence.
Apparently the Daily's editors have taken a page directly from Clinton's playbook of "It all depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is" and "It all depends on what the definition of the word 'alone' is" when they chose to redefine two additional common words; that of "evidence" and "proof."
What are the Daily's new definitions of the words?
evidence: 1. Bill Clinton's spin on an event, happening or circumstance
proof: 1. Bill Clinton says so
For how else can one reconcile this headline with the actual definition of the word "refute?"
Perhaps I was naive to not realize that the phrase "One hundred eight years of editorial freedom" actually means freedom from the restrictions of sound journalism.
Redgie Lancaster
College of Engineering
To the Daily:
When April 20 rolls around this year, for one night the commonly penalized infraction of indecent exposure will be overlooked.
The glory of the Naked Mile lies in the opportunity for personal liberation, not in the photo albums and video libraries of perverted voyeurs.
Runners fully accept the dangerous consequences that might result from freeing themselves of the garments society imposes on them and bounding through the streets of Ann Arbor naked. We know full well we run the risk of finding our birthday suits gracing the presence of some strangers roll of film or some sex deprived computer nerd's Web page.
Photographers also should accept and understand the ensuing consequences of attempting to immortalize a group of ecstatic naked people sprinting through the Diag.
Voyeurs wielding camera equipment need to realize they run the risk of having their camera knocked from their grasp or of being blindsided by an unforgiving and extremely non-photogenic right hook.
Spectators, if you want to watch the festivities this April leave the cameras at home.
Why don't you just participate instead? Free your body of its confining clothing and in doing so set your soul free to dance.
Trust me, it will be much more of a thrill than pointing out some stranger's naked ass to a bunch of your eager high school friends in your college scrapbook.
Pierce Davis
LSA junior
01-27-99
| Previous Article | Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |