The editor in chief and opinions section editor were suspended by Illini Media after the paper received complaints about the paper running the cartoons that are at the heart of a world-wide controversy.
This proves — without doubt — that the Daily Illini has never been the “independent” student publication it claims. The two were suspended by the Illini Media Company board, whose members include dean of the College of Communications and other faculty members.
There was a similar set-up at Eastern Illinois University. The Student Publications Board hired me to be the editor of the Daily Eastern News one summer.
I will say this: It was the clear understanding that once I became the editor in chief, the final say belonged to me, as it did every other single E.I.C. There wasn’t any of this “run it by us first, or we’ll suspend you if there are complaints that might cost us our jobs.”
My advice to the suspended editors. You just received a valuable lesson it took years to finally get through my thick skull: Publishers talk about freedom of the press and the public’s right to know. But when it comes down to it, all they really give a rat’s ass is cashing the checks from advertisers and not making any waves.
By being the cowards that they are, the people who run Illini Media let you in on journalisms’s dirty little secret a bit early. Keep that in mind when you enter the work force.
Update: Ripclawe also doesn’t think highly of the DI.
Media: Remember. Freedom of speech, expression and the press takes a backseat to no one! Unless the someones are willing to beat the hell out of you, then its bad editors.
Tags: anti-muslin cartoons, cartoon protests, Daily Illini, muhammed cartoons
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
If they were acting like journalists, where was the accompanying story to put the cartoons into context? The analysis of Danish/European race relations? The story on how the cartoons were sparked by the inability of a children’s author to find an willing illustrator for his kid’s book about the Prophet? The reaction of local religious and civil rights leaders to the cartoons?
To me, printing the cartoons with an editorial that basically said, “Here’s a bunch of cartoons we know will cause a shitstorm that have gotten other people in trouble,” and not much more isn’t journalism – or if it is, it’s really crappy. I could do better than that, and I’m an amateur who just runs a dinky blog that hardly anyone reads.
Freedom of speech is a right but also a responsibilty. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Running the cartoons, I think, wasn’t necessary.
[...] Peoria Pundit is really unhappy with the suspension of the DI Editors who published the “anti-Muslim” cartoons last week. I agree with him, and think this is further evidence that the only speech that is protected on campus is politically correct speech. Does anyone think, if, in the exact same situation “anti-Christian” cartoons were published, that the editors would have been suspended? [...]
By suspending the editors, the DI is just furthering its educational mission. In the real-world commercial media, journalism takes a back seat to the agendas of upper management and the sensitivities of advertisers. If these kids didn’t know that already, they do now.
You are going to love tomorrow’s blog entry.
Here what The Eastern News had to say about all this.
What do you think of the argument that the IMC claims to have suspended the two editors because they didn’t let any of the rest of the editorial board (read: any editors but the eic and the opinions editor) know about their decisions to run the cartoons? Just curious. I used to work at the DI, so I’ve been watching this issue pretty closely…
I think that any newspaper that tried to make all decisions by voting on them is doomed to be a lousy newspaper.
Perhaps they need to send these to an education camp so that they comply with group-thought.
[...] Billy Panther picks up on my post and adds other instances of lousy collegiate journalism in Illinois. [...]
There won’t be a lot of opinion online from DI or other Illini Media employees, as we can get fired for posting in a blog about our jobs.
Here’s the policy that was sent out to employees and posted around the Illini Media Building:
Illini Media policy on personal blogs and Web sites:
– No Illini Media resources may be used in creating, updating or editing personal blogs or Web sites.
– Illini Media employees may not create, edit or update personal blogs or Web sites during the course of their work day, work shift or work assignment.
– Content of personal blogs or Web sites must not be based upon internal conversations, discussions and/or decisions.
– An employee’s affiliation with Illini Media or any of its units should not be the focus of his or her personal blog or Web site.
– Employees may not post material on personal blogs or Web sites intended for publication/broadcast or material that has been previously published/broadcast.
– Any employee violating this policy is subject to immediate termination of employment with the company.
Good Lord.
So much for transparancy. So much for the press being a free marketplace for ideas.
I would expect a corporate, big media company to have a policy like this. The Big Media is all about controlling the flow of information for their benefit. It looks like Illini Media thinks the same way. Well, no wonder, since academics are even bigger control freaks.
It’s all going to fall by the wayside anyway. The ownership of a printing press or a broadcast tower is no longer necessary to be a media company. In fact having to print and deliver a newspaper is a huge financial burden that gives online media a HUGE financial advantage. As the habits of news consumers change, advertisers will follow.
Freedom of speech is a responsibility, but printing the cartoons became an obligation when they were made a world wide story by the riots. Befor the rioting started, your argument was valid, and it would have probably been prudent not to print the cartoons. Once the Muslim world went on a rampage, people had the right to see what it was all about, and the free media had the responsibility to show them. Responsibility means not unnecessarily offending people, but it also means giving people the information they need to understand events, even if that information offends somebody.