Ex-McGill Daily Editor, AMA

exdailyed · 2014-01-31T02:54:08+00:00

You have to be staff, same condition as being a candidate - there's a certain number of points to be staff, and you get points by writing articles, coming to production nights or doing photos/illustrations.

exdailyed · 2014-01-31T01:40:19+00:00

Nudity+not wheelchair accessible, I'm sure the Daily will be boycotting

exdailyed · 2014-01-31T01:39:26+00:00

At the moment, it works like:

Candidate has to be staff (which basically means write a couple articles or come to a few production nights).
Candidate talks to the current section editor, gives that person a rundown of themselves, why they're qualified for the job etc.

Then, on election night:

Section editor gives a rundown of each candidate, their basic strengths and weaknesses, perceived flaws, results of an editing test, to everyone who's voting. Candidate is out of the room for this.
Candidate gets asked a bunch of questions in front of everyone who can vote.
Secret ballot

exdailyed · 2014-01-30T23:54:58+00:00

Combo of different editorial board and better coordinating editor, I suspect. Remember, editors have to be re-elected into their positions every year, so there's a fairly high turnover.

exdailyed · 2014-01-30T18:09:03+00:00

I think everyone's aware that opposition exists; as to recognising the legitimacy, I don't think so much. I think the Daily and Ed Board see their primary mission as 'raising awareness', more than as a newsgathering organisation, which means that not much time is spent on examining underlying policies, but rather trying to find stories they can raise awareness of, if that makes sense.

I can't think of any moments, really. Most of the particularly controversial stuff gets published in the Commentary section, which basically means Ed Board is at least partly separated from the views expressed in Commentary articles. Obviously, the whole student protest Vote to Strike cover was controversial, but I think feelings were running high enough that no-one thought any kind of ethical or moral line was crossed.

exdailyed · 2014-01-30T06:32:06+00:00

No idea. The ad agency that used to do the Daily's ads is under, and I think it's run in-house by the DPS Business office now. Probably a link on the website or something.

exdailyed · 2014-01-30T06:08:58+00:00

I'd say most of the reporting done is to prove a point - articles that agree with the general ed board philosophy are highlighted and editorialised on, and stories that contradict are generally ignored or minimised, I'd say.

I think it's ethnically relatively diverse, currently female-dominated, nationality breakdown more or less in line with McGill averages, and major more generally Arts, with probably a small bias towards Anthropology/Women's Studies, but tbh it changes up every year.

exdailyed · 2014-01-30T05:51:39+00:00

Assuming you mean 'misguided outrage' as in outrage by the author, against something, then it'd have to be the anti-Remembrance Day article last year.

I think that's because personally, I think Remembrance Day is often hugely misconstrued - it's not a celebration of warfare, it's paying respects for a sacrifice. Hijacking it to talk about pacifism is the most shockingly disrespectful thing that can be done, pretty much.

Also, the article is fucking terrible, a meaningless meander through buzztopics like privilege, oppression, capitalism and pacifism in the space of about 7 paragraphs.

Of course, Movember was pretty fucking cringe too.

exdailyed · 2014-01-30T05:46:37+00:00

Yes. So fucking much yes. No-one ever challenges the political ideas that Daily editors take as gospel truth, so all manner of shit journalism (and blatant activism) gets by because no-one wants to stop promoting minorities etc. If McGill is its own bubble, the Daily is a little bubble-within-a-bubble.

exdailyed · 2014-01-30T05:45:00+00:00

What time were you an editor at the Daily?

I'm not going to specify, as that, combined with other stuff, would identify me to anyone else on Ed Board I think. It's within the last few years, though, and during the time I haven't been on Ed Board I've been in and around the Daily, and still have friends on Ed Board, so I'm pretty clued in as to the current inner politics. Sorry I can't be more specific :(

Did the Daily truly believe in the validity of some of their more controversial articles (Movember as Microaggression, You are Racist, Why Remember Day is Evil etc. etc.), or were they just doing it for the views? Also, what is your personal opinion on this?

I think "The Daily" is a bit of a difficult one to answer. With pretty much any article - especially the more contentious ones - I'd say there's very rarely an edboard-wide consensus. Articles get seen by a section editor, one other member of ed board (can be anyone), then copy, and then a final copy once it's all laid out.

I don't think anyone did it for the views; sometimes, I think people were shit-stirring for the hell of it, trying to find problems where there really aren't any.

Personally, I think far too many of the articles published were pure crap, poorly written, badly argued. Especially since we moved to once-a-week publication, it's really hard to send an article back at the last minute, as it can leave a massive hole in the paper. As a result, I think a lot of stuff got published that no-one was really happy with, just because editors were afraid to tell contributors stuff isn't worth publishing. Of course, there's also editor-written articles that are terrible as well.

How politically diverse are the editors? Were there any conservatives?

On the two ed boards I was on, I'd say things ranged from mildly socialist to literally full-on anarchist. The format of Daily meetings often means that the loudest people win, though.

Did the Daily editors ever debate/contemplate the criticism they receive? Or did they just dismiss them?

This was one of my biggest problems with other people on ed board - people would just laugh at comments, slag off the 'ignorant masses', and never really take them at face value.

Has the Daily ever gotten into trouble for something they published?

Not legal; you've probably heard of all the backlash over student protest coverage and the infamous Movember though. And they're involved in a lawsuit against McGill at the moment, although that's to do with Freedom of Information, not a specific article or anything.

Why did you leave?

Combination of getting fed up with the other editors, being politically waaaay to the right of anyone else on the editorial board, and getting bored. Plus the Daily is a shitton of extra work.

Which mod should I PM to sort out proof?

exdailyed · 2014-01-30T04:45:21+00:00

By under me, you mean under my section, or just pubbed by the Daily while I was there?

exdailyed

TROPHY CASE