The Claremont Port Side has a very slanted article calling for, among other things, civility at the Claremont Colleges. By examining the state of conservatives on CMC's campus, they do us all a good service, but by libeling me and misrepresenting the work I do on The Claremont Conservative and The Claremont Independent, I am forced to respond.
I also judge that its editor, Andrew Bluebond, made a significant ethical violation as editor of The Port Side. He both wrote part of the story and was interviewed for it. Generally, when this happens, it is journalistic protocol to mention it in a contribution line, but Bluebond has no such contribution line. When sources respond to an email, they expect that the name of the person they are talking to will also appear in the by line. Unfortunately, this article is more the work of a hack than a journalist. It has low standards, even for The Claremont Port Side, which at one time was almost sued by The Claremont Institute for libeling Harry Jaffa and the Institute.
It's in part due to that tendency to libel people that I've decided not to associate with The Claremont Port Side As the Claremont Independent only covers school issues from a conservative-libertarian angle, its been quite easy to avoid them.
As usual with The Port Side when it delves into school issue, they get a few things wrong, especially in reference to me, The Claremont Independent, and The Claremont Conservative. Had I been interviewed, I would have gladly corrected that record, but I was not, despite offering to help on numerous occasions. (So much for dialogue!)
They write, with emphasis mine,
Bluebond is probably referring to the fact checking I have done on this blog about the work that The Claremont Port Side does. One of the articles from Bluebond was so ridden with factual inaccuracies that I felt compelled to respond on this blog. Still another ridiculed Bluebond's support for the ill-fated birth control provision of the stimulus bill.As the most visible expressions of CMC’s progressive and conservative voices, the Port Side and the Claremont Independent have always enjoyed a friendly rivalry, according to Wurman. The two publications have a responsibility to the 5Cs — not just to write articles that reflect their ideological preferences, but also to engage one another in productive debate. “I think the relationship is good for the community in that we’ve had editorial debates in the past,” Wurman says. “That’s exactly what college should be about.”
But when the CI changed leadership this semester, animosity supplanted the friendly rivalry. Having edited the Port Side during the tenures of both Wurman and current CI editor Charles Johnson ’11, Andrew Bluebond ’11 has noticed a change in the amount and type of dialogue between the publications. “[Wurman] and I have a good relationship, but we rarely engaged one another in our work,” Bluebond says. Though the newsmagazines often covered the same issues, interaction was rare.
1) Given that they were once nearly sued by the Claremont Institute for libel, all of ASCMC was liable for damages. I think that was the opportunity to eliminate their funding. We shouldn't all be on the hook every time they go to print.2) I am opposed to a newspaper receiving any funds from a student government on the grounds that that newspaper's free speech becomes diminished when it cannot criticize that student government or else risk loss of its funding. This is the same reason I oppose the newspaper bail out bill and that I oppose funding The Student Life.3) On procedural grounds, I don't see what the campus gains from a news magazine that apes the style of The New Republic. Can't I just subscribe to The New Republic? (I used to, back when I lived in Boston.)
I made it very clear to the Claremont Port Side's editor where the two publications -- The Claremont Conservative and The Claremont Independent with respect to one another. Contrary to what Bluebond/Kahn wrote, The Claremont Conservative has hosted my work in its original, pre-Elise Viebeck-edited form. That makes sense, right? This blog, after all, was my creation, so why shouldn't it host my work?
When Johnson took over, however, peaceful coexistence became difficult. Johnson opposes ASCMC’s subsidizing the Port Side on the grounds that it “currently does not” cover campus news. “We don’t understand why college students want to read what other college students have to say about international or national topics,” he said. “When we go looking for thoughtful, progressive commentary, we turn to the New Republic.” Johnson’s attitude towards the Port Side adds some strain to the relationship, but Bluebond does not believe that it should prevent the two publications from working together.. . .
“However, if I can’t tell where one ends and the other begins, it is difficult to make definitive statements about either of them.” According to Johnson, the board of the CI has not voted on merging the political journal and the blog, but the issue has been discussed; however, it seems that there is an informal merger at work. The Claremont Conservative has been used to host the stories that did not make it into the print edition of the CI and there visitors to the blog can donate to redo the political journal’s website.
Here's what I wrote to Andrew after he wrote this email to me. You get a very clear sense of his journalistic integrity. The issue of merging the blog has never been discussed by a Board meeting of The Claremont Independent. It's just not true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles,One of our writers is working on a piece for the next issue of the Claremont Port Side on conservatives at CMC. Ilan was already interviewed for the story, and I think it is coming along nicely; however, I thought I should shoot you an email because your name came up in course of the story. I wanted to give you a chance to comment.One of the sections is on the relationship between the CI and the CPS. In that section, the author quotes me as indicating that the relationship between the two publications changed. I am also quoted as mentioning that the CC and CI seem be undergoing a merger of sorts. I was hoping you might comment on this subject.Let me know what you think,
Reply
Charles Johnson
to Andrew, bcc: Ilan, bcc: Aditya, bcc: Daniel, bcc: John-Clark, bcc: Chase
Given that they are dozens of flat out rumors spread about me, this is a good tactic, if one wanted to discredit the news magazine of record on our campus, which The Port Side assuredly wants to. It makes it look as if The Claremont Independent, which under my leadership has grown tremendously, is the work of one man, but frankly, that's insulting to the students who work for The CI or to the men and women, who by their own talent, have gone on to win internships in journalism. And, unlike The Port Side, we've done it by producing quality work that people want to support with their own resources.
