When I first published a story last month entitled, “SFSS internal conflict follows alleged physical altercation,” I knew that I was starting a fire. It’s an extremely sensitive topic in a tinderwood climate: conflict in a governing body, an alleged altercation between a man and a woman. Potential violence.
When I was first approached about the Oct. 11 incident, I knew it was something I wanted to shed light on as fairly and evenly as possible, a line that would be difficult to walk. I didn’t expect that in trying to maintain that line, I was putting myself in the line of fire.
As a community paper, part of The Peak’s mandate — and one that falls largely on the news section — is to act as a watchdog for the institutions that students place their trust and livelihood in. Whether that institution is the university administration, the graduate, or the undergraduate student society, or one of the many programs that student money goes towards, The Peak included, we’re responsible for reporting on what’s being done and discussed.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not a trained journalist, or even a journalist in training. None of The Peak staff is, as SFU doesn’t have a formal journalism school. I came to SFU to pursue my degree in English. I wanted to write. I came to news because I showed a genuine interest in campus affairs and an ability to write cleanly.
As news editor, it has been my job to follow the affairs of the Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS), a body that represents all undergraduate SFU students and collects fees from them each semester. Student fees pay the wages and stipends of the volunteers and staff members, including the board of directors. Students are given further power in the SFSS through the election process, where a new board of directors is elected each spring.
After the piece on the alleged incident was published, the hammer came down. The online article got the most traffic, and the most comments, that The Peak website has ever had. Comments ranged from civil to . . . not so much. Comments and backlash were directed at everyone involved in the article. It turns out they were also directed at me.
I was called “patriarchal,” “victim-shaming,” and “the SFU counterpart” to UBC rape culture.
I knew that writing a piece exposing conflict in the SFSS might strain my relationship with that society; however, I did not expect personal attacks from strangers. I was called “patriarchal,” “victim-shaming,” and “the SFU counterpart” to UBC rape culture by a reader who believed that I had portrayed Monique Ataei unfairly.
With any important issue, it’s important that you, as a reader, are critical of how the story has been presented. Has it considered both sides? Does it use leading language? Completely unbiased writing is almost impossible to achieve, but it’s something I aim for.
I would be lying if I said that the process of publishing the story hasn’t made me wary of looking into something like this. And as I will be leaving the news editor position after this semester, it will no longer be my job to do so. I think what I would like to leave readers with is a fairly simple message about how you consume and react to your news, based on my personal experience.
So please, don’t shoot the messenger.
