Last week, in a space of 24 hours, Critic was accused of biased storytelling, untrue journalism and “censorship of the student voice”. LOLs, it was one for the journal!
The accusations of biased storytelling and untrue journalism came from friends of the executive member called out in the BYO article last week, as well as a co-executive member. Apparently slapping staff at a family restaurant and stealing don’t count as “violent” or “abusive”. And the same executive member who said this claims to have witnessed the event sober. I think that says more about their morals than anything else. How obknoxious.
As for the “censorship”, a private message between a Critic writer and a friend of the exec was posted as a comment to “prove” the “sub-par” journalism we do. The comment was deleted because it was a private message. It was actually just asking a hall resident if they would be Critic’s informer for hall shenanigans … we could have resorted to installing secret cameras in the halls, but that seems a little invasive. We will continue to ask residents to be informers for us because when shit happens in your hall, whether it’s hilarious stuff or severe bullying — both of which we get reports of — then Critic can call your hall out on it. It’s literally our job to hold your university, your halls and your executive to account.
The censorship accusations were much like the NZ flag chat going on at the moment. Some buddies of the exec had managed to find an irrelevant point to focus on to detract from an actual issue. The actual issue with the executive is that, particularly when 80 percent of them are already good friends, they can function without anyone really holding them accountable (except Critic). They could all do nothing and, providing they support each other, they could all continue to make sure everyone gets paid and keeps their titles.
There are people on the executive who do work hard and do awesome things, just like there are usually people in any team that shine. And for those who are a part of something good that maybe doesn’t get the recognition you’d hope, or gets criticised more than you’d like, there’s a thing you should be listening to: your heart.
It sounds romantic, but it isn’t. When you’re being criticised, “don’t take it personally” is far easier said than done. When your heart is 100 percent in something, you do take it personally and there isn’t anything wrong with this if you’re doing it in the right way and not letting every comment just bring you down. If you’re a moron and criticised for it, then taking it to heart will hopefully mean you won’t be a moron in the same way next time.
Equally, you need to listen to your heart in order to decide who you’re going to listen to. You shouldn’t change your mind or go back on a decision just because some random is against you. Sometimes it might be many randoms. And sometimes it might be just your head up against you.
Be careful who you listen to and be gentle with yourself. If you can kick your ego out of the way, you’ll know in your heart whether you should be listening to those voices or not.
Lots of love,
Josie Cochrane
Critic Editor
