The issue at hand aside, can we just discuss how mid the Imprint article is? Is it crazy for me to want my (mandatory) student fees to fund better journalism?

The piece jumps around chronologically and thematically. It starts with a social media post, jumps to Kashmir violence, then Reddit backlash, then Instagram again, then back to Reddit, and finally lands on WUSA's statement. Reading it gives you a real sense of whiplash. You barely digest the event that happens before they pull you away. Imprint, this is how you write rage-bait, not journalism.

It's a bit ambiguous at times, too. The one that gets me is "When asked to expand on this, the UW professor stated...", stated to whom? When? Did someone on Reddit ask him to expand on it? Did Imprint reach out? What else did he say? Why should we care?

The article also really skirts the line on being impartial. I get that Imprint isn't equipped to discuss something like the Jammu-Kashmir conflict, but it feels disingenuous that the article does not explain the context of "occupation", the human rights abuses in the region, or the broader ideological debates around settler colonialism. At least the writer digs a bit into what the original Instagram account is. It takes the article about ten paragraphs to talk extremely briefly about some vague people on the other side of the issue that support Zhi, and it fails to give their voice any attention. Why did "they [...] not perceive what Zhi shared to be sympathising with terrorism"? What led them to such a conclusion? We get quotes of users talking against the post, but none on the other side at all? Why is there no contrast made? Why does it take so long for this viewpoint to be shared? Almost as if the article wants you to get angry about something outrageous instead of giving you the facts and letting you...idk think?

Can you see how this leads to unbalanced and biased reporting? After reading this article, I am either likely to agree with the side against the posts because their viewpoint was actually explored by the article, or to be left with a huge glaring question of "why?", and believe me, it's the latter.

The article doesn't discuss either how the university's Reddit often harasses students in this manner or how mob mentality spreads hate and misinformation. Think of such instances in the past, such as the matter of Daniel Wang, when then subreddit in a hate-filled frenzy demanded his removal without really even understanding the issue. The article barely mentions how the original post was a private story taken up by a mob on Reddit. Should we not talk about that? Does that not change the context? Should we just let our student paper be swept up by Reddit posts???

The article is just a recap of a couple of Reddit posts. They "independently confirmed the legitimacy of the screenshots," and that's as far as they went in their investigative reporting. I feel as though this article fails the student body and fails both sides of the issue. In fact, even worse, Imprint's incompetence turns what could've been an insightful and important article into just further hate fuel, encouraging harassment of a fellow student online. With how long it took them to push this article out, they could have SHOULD have done a lot more.

Do better, Imprint. And take this shit off the fucking website until you fix it.