so you were, what, baiting your readers into anger, hoping they would provide your website with a few more hits?

you're the head of the editorial board, ms jeglum, which means you have as much to answer for (if not more) as everyone else. you can't wave off your bad decision and claim it was good for public debate. you and your people made the wrong call and you need to own up to it.

i don't need your pride, i need you to understand the frustrations of your readers on your decision to reprint a bunch of dino rossi's talking points. i would expect to hear an explanation about why you chose to do that, but instead i'm betting we're going to hear a lot more petty self-congratulatiosn about the number of comments you recieved on your website.

Sarah, I completely agree with you that it's awesome that we're having such a spirited level of debate. What would be great, though, is answers from The Daily to some of the more substantive questions raised by readers in their comments.

What?

That's it?

You're proud of the near-unanimous dissent you've received from your audience?

You're not going to back up your endorsement with further reasons that Rossi might be better?

You're not going to factcheck what you said yesterday and prove *some*one wrong, whether it be us or you?

I don't demand a retraction, I don't demand that someone be fired. I simply want to understand what happened in the process of the lifecycle of the article in question that it was published in the state it was.

For indeed, you are entitled to your opinion, if indeed it really is the collective editorial staff's opinion that Rossi is the superior candidate. And you, as the editorial staff of the Daily, have become entitled to an elevated platform from which to espouse your beliefs.

However, greater than entitlement is responsibility, and as press, student or not, it is your responsibility to adhere to journalistic integrity. That integrity demands that you report and advise citizens (or in this case, students) with, to the best of your ability, with the most accurate information you yourself can muster. That integrity demands careful consideration of every printed word, every fact. That integrity demands that those opinions which you are entitled to are researched and inspected to the greatest extent possible.

That integrity demands that you respect what it means to be a journalist.

As far as I can tell, and you have done nothing to dispel this belief, the Rossi endorsement has failed all of these criteria.

So here is my challenge to you. Go back and factcheck your Rossi endorsement. Find reputable sources that back up everything you said. Even if those sources themselves were wrong, even if they were as ill-informed as your own article was, prove to us that some measure of discipline went into to the writing process. We'll feel a sliver better, we promise.

Otherwise, admit your mistake. What happened in the writing and editing process so that this article slipped through in its current state? It was clearly not meant to be very important, given its placement in the layout. How did this happen?

People make mistakes, we get that. We're not out for blood. We don't need a name of a writer to behead. In every issue of every major paper and magazine, there is an errata column. Things like this happen. Explain it to us.

Be truthful.

We'll appreciate that, I promise.

After reading Comment #5 I must agree that The Daily can still re-gain some of its credibility by at least publishing some sort of explanation complete with fact-checking like any other professional newspaper would (and as we strive to be).

Once this letter goes to print that is it. In the next 100 years of The Daily's life this letter will always exist somewhere in the archives as a scar over the 08-09 year's achievements. We need to show the UW Community, present and future that The Daily can write properly substantiated pieces.

So please, stop the presses and write something to explain The Daily Editorial Staff's position.

@Arla:

Unfortunately I was not even aware of this issue until today, when I was told to look for it in the paper by a friend (and non-employee of The Daily).

Now that it has already happened, I will be more than willing to make my opinion present at manager's meetings or with Sarah.

However on a side note, I think posting on the Daily's own site effectively provides a certain level of transparency--letting Daily readers know that not everyone at The Daily agrees with the decisions of the Editorial Board.

I just think it is ironic when a newspaper endorses a republican gubernatorial candidate who has shows to completely ignore rights to access of information and freedom of speech. He is insanely against sex-education which gives information to make informed decisions, much like newspapers are meant to do. That is why I can't believe a newspaper that is supposed to be legit and informed would endorse a candidate who has no qualms in supporting censorship.

Bob (and anyone else), you are completely free to come into The Daily and ask to speak with Sarah or I.

Sarah, you know I absolutely respect you as an editor-in-chief despite this article as I did Amy despite the infamous "Greeks" article. However, I think you're missing why these people are angry at the Daily. The Daily is free to represent whichever political candidate they feel fit--as with ASUW candidates--but the facts supporting this decision (especially in a delicate time such as this) needs to be well-researched and the article written professionally. The Daily did neither of those things and so there is such a negative outcry.

Please make the "editorial board" (who is that anyway???) think of poor fledgling marketing before pulling stuff like this! I'm not even part of the Daily any more but my heart goes out to them.

Endorsements should only be made if candidates are compared issue by issue, on every issue, and especially those that most affect the target audience. Source citations are essential. Transparency is essential. I see none of that here, only drivel that looks like it was copied straight from Dino Rossi's web site.

It's dangerously naive to think that this endorsement can't influence such a closely contested election; the 2004 gubernatorial election was decided by 133 votes. From the Daily's own web site:

"The Daily of the University of Washington is the third largest daily in the Seattle area and is read by more UW students than any other daily publication. Student enrollment is around 40,000. There are more than 30,000 faculty and staff members. 20,000 copies of The Daily are printed every day school is in session during the Fall, Winter and Spring quarters."

This endorsement is an embarrassment to not only the editorial board (which is whom exactly?) but to the editors who approved this for publication. It's also an insult to the other staff who write for the Daily; I highly doubt this endorsement is representative of their opinions.

The editors of the Daily owe an apology to their own staff and the UW community. For the sake of transparency, they should disclose the members of the "Editorial Board" who wrote this. If the Daily was a major newspaper, people would lose their jobs for such carelessness.

Now that I know the Daily doesn't receive state funds for its operations, I have no problem whatsoever with them making endorsements of whoever they want. I would expect, however, that they would do so at a level above that of a 5th grader.

On an unrelated note, when someone turns in an application to write for the Daily, proceeds to write an article about health equity and social justice to demonstrate an example of their work, and makes repeated attempts to contact the editors only to be completely ignored, it tends to leave a negative impression. Just, you know, for your information.

I know you have gotten several comments on this already, but I feel like I have to put in my two cents.

Now, it is fine with me if you endorse Rossi, but you are journalists and it would have been nice if you didn't just cut all the talking points from Rossi's website and paste them together to make your endorsement. You guys did the same thing when you said vote no on I-1000. You didn't mention that this same law has been in Oregon for over 10 years, and it has not been "abused." You just cut and pasted right from the vote no on I-1000 website.

I know this is a college newspaper, but come on. You all could have worked a little harder in writing your endorsement and it would have left people little room to grip.

First off, you just gloss over the fact that "[y]es, more children are now insured..." Does that not matter to you? Is it not important to you that children who's parents cannot afford health insurance are covered under a state plan that allows them to get health care?

You say Rossi is going to cut our taxes, rebuild 520 (his plan is to have a giant 8 lane bridge with no light rail) and rebuild 405 and pay teachers more and balance the budget. He has already admitted he won't be able to do all of this, so why would you tell our readers he will?

Gregoire had a plan for the viaduct, and the voters didn't like it. We voted on the issue, we had a choice of 3 options and we voted them all down. How can you blame that on Gregoire?

And really, you blame her for the Sonics? Really? Have you all not been paying attention to what has been going on in our city over the past several years? We didn't want the Sonics bad enough. The voters were given the option to pay for a new stadium and we turned it down. When Clay Bennet came here and bought our crappy Sonics he said he wanted a new stadium. We turned him down. Us, the voters. Not Gregoire, she wanted to keep the team. The legislature wanted to keep the team; we the voters didn't want to pay for a new stadium, the Sonics were not worth it.

Now I understand that you all are probably not Seattle natives like me and maybe you don't know the history here. That's fine. But if you are going to endorse a candidate, really get behind them, don't you think you should vet them yourselves?

Look I know this is a tough race, mostly because both of the candidates suck. Yup I said it, I wish there was someone else running. Pretty much anyone. I don't like the direction that Gregoire has taken the state, but I also can't see myself voting for someone who reads Atlas Shrugged as their bible (for those who don't know, the whole reason our economy is screwed up is because the people in charge followed this book as prophecy), is against Gay rights, and is an anti-choice candidate. He doesn't campaign strongly with those last two views, but you should look at how he campaigned in the past, he would be right up there with Palin in his bigotry and fear mongering.

SEMANTICS*

Sarah: Congratulations on your well thought-out endorsement of Dino Rossi and your cogent follow-up editorial reminding your readership of the mission of the publication you so competently and courageously lead. Cudos!!

Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit..."

This dialogue is almost painful at this point. Maybe Initiative 1000's passage could put me out of my misery but, oops, I'm voting against it.

You're an idiot.

So looks like you made a few people angry out there in UW land (and Seattle). When I was a writer for the Daily in 04 - 06 I became privy to the notion that the campus republicans had been trying to "infiltrate" the Daily because they felt that their voice was not being represented. I at once thought this was funny because the Daily that I knew was so overly bland and haphazardly non-bias as a result of the general unwillingness of its staff and writers to do anything remotely risque, that even the notion of a liberal Daily was absurd. But after the Strangers blog directed me to your endorsement of Dino Rossi I realized that the aforementioned infiltration must have occurred. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and read the endorsement; bad idea - it made you look even worse than before - when I thought you might somehow have a good--non-talking point--reason for endorsing Rossi. You didn't! Also, who and what are the editorial board, and were there any dissenters on that board, because I think your public (mostly new because of this stunt) should know. When I graduated the UW with a Journalism degree I was proud of myself, my education from the UW, but not of the paper I wrote for. I even felt that my community college paper I previously wrote for had more style and class that the reader-less and rudder-less daily. Orin, if he is still around is probably oh so disappointed if he's not senile by know. And, he here's a tip if you do construct a real "editorial board" try and make it with members who will dissent the opinions of the rest; and if they don't than its probably cause the staff was selected because they wouldn't. The Daily has always been a "saved by the bell" kind of social club, filled with retaliating high school outcasts in search of power, and apparently according to your "contact" link also all female (interesting). Please don't abuse your power, it would give journalism a bad name: Whoops, too late!

The Seattle Times might give Sarah Jeglum an internship for this stunt, but the paper as a whole will suffer for some time in the eyes of its readership.

Yet another nail in the coffin of a once great paper.

Stupid, poorly written articles such as this are part of the reason the journalism students steer clear of The Daily; they know what's beneficial and what's poison as far as their careers are concerned.

Maybe some day the incompetent clique of kids that's currently in charge will be succeeded by students motivated by more than angst.

The Daily is a tabloid rag - read The Stranger. At least they have pleasing design and a willing community of readers.

Man, it sucks that it took this long to replace Jason Chambers with someone good enough to provide entertainment in the opinion section.

^^^

the above was written before daily staff deleted a post including an email from arla shephard to the advertising staff about the running of the editorial.

is there some way i can contact you outside of this website

Oh honestly, people. Whether or not you agree with the endorsement of Rossi, it's what the editorial board decided upon and I am glad they did if only for the purpose of actually starting a dialogue and a debate.

Let's look at this another way: If the editorial board at the Daily had endorsed Gregoire and members of the college republicans started complaining about it on the comments section, theyd have been dismissed almost instantly as whiny crybabies. Just something to think about.

Whatever happened to tolerance and the 1st amendment?

I agree, Katie. Stop being a bunch of pussies and get it in your head that other people just might not believe the same things you do.

To the last couple of idiots joining the fray (Katie, Sherwin, Richard):

If you'd been paying attention, most of the criticism has been about the shoddy, piss-poor quality of Jeglum & co's endorsement, not the fact that they endorsed a Republican.

More importantly, what the fuck would we gain from a Rossi victory?

Strictly on the issue of state funding...

Reject mediocrity. Eviscerate banality. Eradicate bullshit.

Our campus newspaper has the responsibility to strive for excellence, to challenge the way we think about and perceive the world, to uplift our collective consciousness, and to do so by adhering to the standards of professional journalism - source citations, transparency, objectivity, comprehensiveness of coverage.

Instead we have something you can't even wipe your ass with (too splintery, plus the ink smears).

If Monday's paper doesn't contain an explanation from the editors (at the very least), I'm going to take this up with the administration.

I couldn't care less who you endorse for whatever. This goes way beyond the Rossi endorsement. I'm talking about adhering to the ethics and standards of professional journalism.

I'm waiting...

I just saw that the post that contained the email was deleted. I've retained a copy.

Blatant censorship? You clearly don't realize how much you are digging your own grave. Keep it up!