Ending Editor’s Voice exclusivity


[dropcap]A[/dropcap]s a member of the editorial staff at The Peak, I’d like to make an apology I feel is long overdue.

Campus newspapers aren’t infallible. In fact, you could argue that we wouldn’t be doing a very good job of the news if everyone involved — from our sources to our readers and beyond — were satisfied with us. We often have a “go big or go home” attitude, which is great since we’re in university and we can get away with it.

However, the one group I feel we have been letting down is our writers and those who want to get involved with The Peak, and to those folks I think we owe a heartfelt apology. If you’ll let me be a little on the nose with this, you’ll see where I’m going.

I feel the Editor’s Voice, this article you’re reading, is a great example of how much we maybe prioritize ourselves a little too much here. Three editors and five contributors here at the paper recently went down to Los Angeles for an Associated Collegiate Press conference, and during a critique of our paper, this page in particular was questioned.

Why is the first article presented in our paper often either some funny story from our pasts or an opinion that we have? There have been some incredibly strong Editor’s Voices, so it isn’t an issue of poor quality. It’s just that this is an example of us putting ourselves ahead of everything else in the paper, which probably sends a weird message. Besides, we have an opinions section for that.

The worst part about this is that some of us feel shoehorned into writing one because we had to sign up for these at the beginning of the semester. That’s us deciding right away to start all thirteen issues with us, regardless of the content in the paper.

Sadly, we’ve been called out for being a weird Peak clique in the past.

This would all be making a mountain out of a molehill if I felt we had a great relationship with our contributors. I love to nitpick, but it would be a little obsessive if I wrote a column essentially bashing my own column for existing when that was our only issue.

However, we’ve been called out for being a weird Peak clique in the past (which is a cute, yet stinging assessment), and I feel we’re unfortunately still learning that we have contributors who feel this way. It isn’t always the case that our contributors find the strength to stand back up to us, but I know I benefit from when they do, and I wish I could find a way to improve how I’m seen as an editor by contributors.

I feel like maybe we’ve been a little too masturbatory here, which has given a poor impression to our writers and illustrators that they’ll never be valued the way we value ourselves. Case in point: another editor was excited just to write their Editor’s Voice because they had been contributing for so long and finally got the good real estate on page three — as if we’ve ingrained it in our newspaper’s culture that this is the way we do things forever now.

To that end, I want to apologize to our contributors and extend the olive branch in hopes that we can get back to repairing our relationship. Perhaps we can start things over again?

Hey, we’re The Peak, and although we don’t always show it, we love you nerds. Please stick with us while we find better ways to show you this.


  1. The idea of a newspaper dedicating an opening editorial to how masturbatory its opening editorials are and announcing their deletion strikes me as someone who is grappling with symptoms and not causes.

    If you wanna get rid of EV to encourage contribs, that’s a fine idea, but this article is just overblown. If you wanna do it, just do it; this public pontification on your cliqueness may connect with your contribs, buy rveryone else is gonna find it… cliquey.

    If you want to make your contribs feel more encouraged and welcome, just do it or address them personally on the subject. Isn’t that why The Peak has collective, so it doesn’t have to air all its dirty laundry in the paper?