I'm really more like Optimus Prime...

The campus newspaper, the Metropolitan, has finally devoted some of the editorial pages of its paper to be used as a response to our newspaper. They're response, presented in three different articles, can be found in the April 2nd edition titled "Final Edition." We call it free advertising.

My response as Publisher of the Constitutional Reporter? I'm flattered really. It has been several months since the pages of our paper turned up on campus; several issues of the Met came and went, none taking notice of our paper. And now, to make and be the news in not one, but three different articles in their recent edition well, that's quite an accomplishment!

However, I do have some concerns.

The folks at the Met seem to have become unhealthily self-absorbed in, and obsessed with our paper, and glorify our work far beyond what is necessary. For instance, they report on 14 and 1/3 papers on campus other than their own. By our count, there is only 10 other papers on campus, meaning that the Met has assigned our paper a value of 4 and 1/3 papers. Not only have they taken an interest in our paper, but they almost seem to exalt and give us a celebrity status. They even go so far as to compare me to one of the legendary Transformers characters.

The Met chose to reference an animated series, recently made into a full-screen movie, Transformers. They have labeled me as Metatron, presumably a twist on Megatron from Transformers. However, I must insist that if I am to be compared in the context of Transformers, then the comparison should reflect 'objective' standards.

I'm really more of an Optimus Prime type of character or physical reincarnate on Earth. I always have pictured myself as the 'good guy,' up against the powerful and well-funded establishment that preys on the weak and innocent students and their wallets.

The Met has labeled me as Metatron because I am to them, an enemy and a threat. Throughout the Transformers series, the 'Megatron' character is perceived to be a threat by Optimus Prime and the 'good' transformers. Optimus Prime battles Megatron not because he has to or wants to, but because Megatron is evil and hell-bent on controlling the universe.

Now, I promise I am neither evil nor hell-bent on controlling the universe, or for that matter Metro State. In fact, the Metropolitan more accurately measures up to this. Why? Well, Megatron wanted to subject every 'bot' in the universe to his rule and control, whether they wanted it or not. Optimus Prime went to war against the threat of universal slavery; he did not ask for the other 'bots' to pay him for his efforts; he went to battle against a known evil because it was the right thing to do.

Similarly, the Metropolitan takes money out of the pockets of students- through student fees- whether or not they want to read the paper. My duty, as Optimus Prime/publisher/editor/photographer/cage fighter of the Constitutional Reporter, is to fight against unnecessary expenditures and to protect students from tuition and fee hikes. I do not charge the students who read the paper anything for this service, and I do not charge those who are not even aware of the paper anything through their student fees. If Megatron and Optimus Prime were battling it out for territory at Auraria Campus, I think Optimus Prime would be on the side of lowering tuition and reducing student fees.

What does Optimus Prime have to say about the Metropolitan's article that calls for restrictions on our freedom of the press?

Colin Seger, in his article "What's black and white and read all over?" delivers an important point: newspapers have a duty to truthful reporting. We couldn't agree more. And in the name of truth, we must point out some fallacies, lies, and misinformation that Seger leaks into his article.

First: Seger embarks on a smear campaign to distort the good name of our paper. To do this, he examines a line from a recent article in our paper: "a violent seventh-century barbarism that means to subjugate the West." From that line, Seger infers that his friends and people he knows are part of that "seventh-century barbarism," and that all Muslims are violent (these are his words, not ours).

I don't know who Seger associates with or why they would want to be his friend; neither does the particular journalist of whom he is so critical. But I would wager that his friends are not violent. Our article never suggested that Seger's friends are violent. And our articles, including the one in question, never suggested that all Muslims are violent. These were all inferences, separate of our article, that Seger would attempt to pass off and cloak as 'objective facts.'

Furthermore, need I remind Seger, a journalist in his own right who has a certain flavor for opinion pieces, that our paper also runs opinion pieces? He should have easily determined that the article in question, and in fact many of our articles, are opinion pieces. He is right that no one should call a group of people "barbaric" in the form of an objective journal article, but an opinion piece opens the door for, well, OPINION.

Let's apply Seger's twisted way of drawing conclusions to some articles found in the Met. Since the Publisher of our paper is called 'Metatron,' (more accurately would be Optimus Prime), Seger might conclude that everyone who works for the Constitutional Reporter is a 'bot,' and is possibly interested in taking over and controlling the entire universe.

The rest of the article reveals Seger to have formed a double standard or catch-22. He does not want our paper to promote any of our opinions, but he is more than willing to fill their newspapers pages with his own offensive opinions. According to Seger, it is perfectly ok to call a person a racist (as he does Mark Steyn), and it perfectly ok to call a person deficient (as he does Ayn Rand), but it is never ok to call a person or group violent. Does he bother to clarify how Steyn is a racist or how Ayn Rand is deficient? Blank out. Has he read any of Ayn Rand? Blank out.

More disturbing, is Seger's lack of understanding and knowledge of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Seger declares that "if freedom of the press is to be defended...it must be understood as separate and distinct from freedom of speech." Uhm...excuse me? What was that? A statement such as this is frightening because, according to Seger, people should be free to say whatever they wish, but publishing those statements in a printed form must be restrained in some way. What kind of country would this be if we restrained our presses? And to do so as Seger suggests, in the interest of defending the "freedom of the press...as a fundamental right?" What kind of backward logic is that? To defend the freedom of the press we must distinctly separate it from freedom of speech? Wake up Seger, the two rights are guaranteed equally, together, not separately.

Lastly:

Our layout and design team has actually been outsourced to a team of second graders. They are flattered that your paper views our layout and design to have been done by sixth graders on a time crunch. Quite the complement for the little guys.

The Leadership Institute is hardly a libertarian think tank. The Metropolitan needs to perform due diligence and research these things before putting inaccurate statements into print. Please familiarize yourselves with the Leadership Institute, after which time, a retraction is requested from your paper. http://www.leadershipinstitute.org


now that that has all been said, I'm off for a reconnaissance mission with my fellow Autobots as we battle Megatron and the Decepticons....