Radical, left-wing, cliquey and sometimes even student trash; these are but some of the ways in which Arthur is perceived by some members of the Trent Community. Coming to Trent as a first year student, all that I had heard about the Arthur was that it is queer-positive, very political and highly controversial.
It only took me a few weeks to learn that our beloved student newspaper was seen as a joke to some students and an insult to journalism by others. While my perspective is inevitably skewed by my position as an Arthur writer, I sometimes wonder why it is that Trent students fail to appreciate the Arthur as a source of information and even entertainment. What I find even more shocking is the ignorance of some when I ask if they read the Arthur. “What’s that?” they ask.
Arthur is funded by a levy taken from students’ tuition. One would have hoped that there would be some interest in seeing where that money is going, and how we as students can make that investment all the more worthwhile. I didn’t understand how to make sense of this so I went to the Trent public—to those with a stake in the Arthur and those without. I wanted to see what students actually thought of this newspaper and this is what some had to say.
Some obviously had more to say than others:
Dylan De Leskie
I think it promotes a brand of kookery leftism, of moonbattery conspiracy Marxism - with no interest whatsoever of hearing a dissenting point of view. I've wanted to contribute an article for years but was afraid they would edit out things I write and still publish whatever is left over under my name as they have done to people I know in the past. It's one thing to be Left of Centre with thoughtful and respectable opinions. It's another thing to say that Bush did 9/11, Harper hates minorities and that "you're either a Marxist like us or you're useless." So it follows then that thoughtful leftists and conservatives alike take issue with the sensational, unfair presentation of the paper. I remember on my radio show once I talked about how a normal "pro-choicer" is someone who believes abortion should be legal within the first trimester of pregnancy but those who are extremists and unthoughtful about their position are the "pro-choicers" who think abortion should be tax-funded (so therefore the half of the country who disagrees with them don’t have their core values respected) or those who think life doesn't begin until birth. I talked about how I can't accept, respect or tolerate such an extreme opinion in any way anymore than a normal pro-choicer shouldn't accept, respect or tolerate people who think post-abort women should be killed. In response, the next issue of the Arthur had on its front page something like "Anti Choice Rhetoric Doesn’t Understand the Situation of Young Women" and about a third of the paper was dedicated to pro-abortion, anti-baby propaganda (not pro-choice, because they don’t support the pro-life tax-payer's right to choose). Of course, the Arthur didn't say my name because that would be too direct and draw more attention to me. Anyway, that's just one example. For a non-refundable levy you'd think it should be more open to all sorts of different points of view.
Ayesha Asghar
Arthur is a great medium for vocalizing students’ concerns and needs in Peterborough and Trent community, it’s just sad that it hasn't been used for this purpose a lot. It’s like any other democratic organization where it has faults, but if you can tap into the platform that it can offer you, you can reap way more benefits than you can imagine.
Shani Victorin
Well, print media is dying. I hardly ever read the Arthur. Chances are, I will pick up a copy if there is something specific in it, or someone tells me about an article they read in it. I will say that I feel like The Arthur has altered its writing style and is more palatable and less controversial this year as compared to previous years.
Brett Throop
I think Arthur is a place where everyone is invited to engage in a public conversation about our university, our communities, and our world. However, I do see some areas where Arthur can improve.
1. Most paid positions at the paper are for production, writing, putting together the paper week-to-week, and dealing with finances. Meanwhile, board members are volunteers who have limited time to put into their roles. Though cash is tight right now, I think it might be helpful to have a paid staff person who isn’t directly working to produce the paper weekly, but is tasked with things like community outreach, liaising with the Board of Directors, organizing events and training workshops, and seeking out new partnerships and funding opportunities.
2. Governance needs to improve as well. For instance, I was a board member for one year and I received no orientation to the role. There needs to be better organization at the board level. A process has begun to update Arthur’s bylaws, policies and procedures, which I think is promising.
3. I think there also needs for better planning and organization on the editorial side. Writers and editors should have a plan from the beginning of the year of what stories they’re going to cover and who’s going to cover them. As it is now, most content decisions are made week-to-week. It would help to have one or more staff persons working over the summer to do some of this planning.
4. Arthur needs to keep reaching out to all of its members (all Trent students are members) to see how the paper can better engage them.
5. The organization needs more money, too. I’d love to see a campaign to solicit alumni donations.
This year there’s been an effort to engage more members of the student community and I think that’s been reflected in the content. It’s important to fight the perception that Arthur is an exclusivist clique so that everyone feels welcome to contribute. We can only benefit from more perspectives participating in the discussion.
Samudhya S.
I think the Arthur's changed... it used to be a lot more "radical" and "different". But people need to realise that Trent is "different" in that way, it's the people in IDS/the LGBT community who appear cliquey to others who don’t identify with that...I've heard that comment a lot. I don’t think there's anything wrong with what's published as long as it is reflective of the particular student interests the Arthur is supposed to serve.
Joanna Richardson
I think The Arthur effectively connects with the Trent student. It is truly written by students, for students, about issues students are facing. I would like The Arthur to showcase more student artwork and creative pieces, perhaps in special editions (one every month or something).
Realistically speaking, we can’t please everyone but I found that there were some lessons to be learnt from all of this. There is some amount of awareness in the public sphere of Arthur’s efforts at providing a better product, there are strong opinions about us, good and bad, and that’s always welcome because it means that people are paying attention.
Lastly, we must not be passive commentators when it comes to the quality of our student newspaper, participation is key if you don’t see your own interests reflected in the pages of this paper. Start writing.
