Philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “cultivate the habit of being grateful for every good thing that comes to you, and to give thanks continuously. And because all things have contributed to your advancement, you should include all things in your gratitude.”
Those words are especially meaningful to me now. I am incredibly grateful, and honored, to be Editor In Chief. To be selected to lead The Oakland Post is the greatest accomplishment of my collegiate career. I am endlessly thankful for the support of my family, friends, colleagues and the OU community.
When I started at The Oakland Post, I never would have imagined that I would become Editor in Chief. The idea of leading this immensely talented staff never crossed my mind. I was simply happy to just contribute.
As time went by, I started to ponder how I could make a difference in a leadership position. The Oakland Post has a storied legacy of excellence, and the idea of implementing my own vision was increasingly attractive.
Last fall, I came to the realization that becoming Editor in Chief of The Post was more than just a vague desire. I wanted to make it a reality. My time at The Post has been incredibly rewarding. It is invigorating to work with like-minded peers who are as passionate about the future of journalism as I am.
My goals for my tenure as Editor In Chief are to further the work of my predecessors, and build upon the legacy of The Post by introducing some new ideas. I hope to focus on bringing The Post into the digital age, focusing on increasing content and accessibility for our online readers. I also want to build a space for a larger discussion about current events in the American political landscape and its impact on students on our campus.
There is an old adage in politics that all politics is local. I feel the same way about journalism. The importance and protection of the press begins at the local level first, and spreads out to statewide papers, national publications and the international media. This is especially true at a time when freedom of the press appears to be under attack on a global scale.
In 2022, 86 journalists were killed and hundreds more attacked or imprisoned. Audrey Azoulay, Director-General of the United Nations cultural agency UNESCO, stated that 2022 was the “deadliest year for the profession.”
Furthermore, it was discovered that disinformation, hate speech and media censorship are threatening freedom of the press worldwide.
“Our freedom depends on press freedom,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said. “Freedom of the press is the foundation of democracy and justice. It gives all of us the facts we need to shape opinions and speak truths to power.”
With reports as dire as these, how could I not feel driven to reaffirm my commitment to the noble cause of fair and objective reporting?
At The Oakland Post, we are thankful for our freedom of press. An independent newspaper is vital to any college campus, and we continue to be vigilant in disseminating true and fair reporting as we strive to protect our treasured right of a free press. We are additionally grateful for the opportunity to educate, inform and inspire our audience. We are and always will be an independent news source committed to serving the OU community.
So with that, I welcome all of you to volume 49 of The Oakland Post. I am proud and excited to start this new chapter with all of you.
cheyenne tarasenko • Jul 19, 2023 at 12:22 PM
Arianna Heyman, you have a great opportunity to reinstate the Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Speech in the United States, beginning at Oakland University. The choice is yours.
yousef • Jul 19, 2023 at 10:12 AM
Arianna,
A robust free press that values truth is critical to a functioning society. You are correct and i agree whole heartedly that media shapes our opinions and the lense we use to see the world.
Giving any consideration to what has been called hate speech and disinformation is unwise. What exactly is hate speech? who defines what is hateful? is hate speech simply speech you dont like or consider blasphemous to your worldview? what standard do you use and what do you do about it? censor those who engage in what you think is hate speech? arent you just cutting your nose to spite your face if you do this?
disinformation is even stickier of an issue. first of all what is disinformation? who decides what is truth? The CIA, FBI, CDC, NSA, DHS, or CISA? What makes “official” sources preferable to determine what constitutes truth and thereby discern what may be disinformation? I think some of these orgs have behaved reprehensibly in the last few years as evidenced in the Twitter files and several congressional hearings. If they cannot be trusted who is? If the premise that these orgs cannot be trusted is true isnt the term disinformation useless? Furthermore isnt an appeal to authority logically fallacious reasoning when determining truth?
Was it not the IRS who was weaponized to go after a certain admins political rivals? Didnt a certain president say the shots would prevent you from getting covid? what happened to two weeks to slow the spread? Was it the CDC that published material on how to have social distanced casual sex during a pandemic? what governor in june of 2020 marched in lansing shoulder to shoulder without social distancing during the pandemic? was this the same governor who went after Karl Manke’s barber shop and lost? Which FBI raided certain journalists in New York (J.Okeefe)? which CIA killed Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki without due process or trial?
i would add links to substantiate my claims but the OP doesnt allow them anymore
I would caution you from assuming sources that are “official” are true in and of themselves. you must always consider each organizations motives and not blindly trust them. Even if the data they are presenting is technically correct how it is arranged and presented can distort what the data may actually say.
Looking forward to a new EIC.
Youhana • Jul 20, 2023 at 3:13 PM
Yousef, it is ironic that the same relativism you rail against when it comes to “absolute truths” and “natural law” you now attempt pathetically to use to distinguish between hate speech and other speech. I have read your statements regarding the question “what is a woman?” and other culture war issues the right uses to divide people and find it comical that you are in essence defending the right to spew hatred with those same arguments you are emphatically against. Hate speech is unwise Yousef. Try harder not to use it.
yousef • Jul 21, 2023 at 8:19 AM
Youhana,
The purpose of my comment was to point out the term “hate speech” is nebulous because hate in and of itself is highly subjective. i view asking the question of “what is a woman” as legitimate and not the nebulous term hate speech or hateful at all.
I assume based on your choice of an example you consider the question “What is a woman” as hate speech. This is exactly the point of my previous comment. i do not consider asking someone to explain what they mean when they claim a label while you presumably do. Especially when that label has traditionally been understood to mean a certain thing and that thing has been granted with their own spaces in law and society.
Labeling whatever someone says on the opposite end of an issue as hateful shuts down conversation. It is a personal attack you can use to cudgel your opponents into submission without ever addressing their points on the issue.
Why dont you define hate speech? Specifically what hate is and how it is determined in as specific terms as possible, feel free to include an example. I think it is understood as speech you dont like or find blasphemous to your worldview.
Props to OP for letting my comments post. Let us post links in comments again.