Media will always be accused of partiality—often by those whose misdoings are exposed. In our case such an accusation is particularly baseless, for The Medium is composed of students. The only way a student who writes for The Medium could avoid a “bias” is by refraining from participation in any UTM activity.

For the record, we have previously printed articles written by UTMSU staff. This year, for example, we printed an article by then-VP External Dhananjai (DJ) Kohli in which he defended the UTMSU’s stand against tuition fees. This article was printed one week after I defended the current tuition fees. By the token of the posters who claim Saaliha Malik shouldn’t be allowed to write about UTMSU’s donation because she attended a meeting, we should not have allowed Mr. Kohli to criticize tuition fees in our newspaper, not when he had actively campaigned against them.

Interestingly, no one at the UTMSU accused us of bias then.

We have decided to stop comments on this topic, and even deleted a few ones, because some posters began discussing Saaliha Malik’s personal life in an unflattering way. What a sad, shameful way to act.

Yours,

Alain Latour

Did the Medium “inform” the students about the fact that UTM is going to be spending $70 million on construction of new buildings, while raising tuition fees because they have no money?

What about the fact that UTM wanted going to start fining students for smoking withing 9 meters of any building?

Look, just because you can sit in your big office and say that youve reported on something that the union did wrong (and the only reason it seems wrong is because you put a negative spin on it) does not make you a real paper. Youre not a student union newsletter. Your bias leans (clearly) the other way.

Grow a pair and take on those who actually harm students. The admin, with their exorbitant raises in tuition fees, while raising their own salaries (I dont remember you publishing that either).

Do you know what the nature of the fact was? Did it, in any way, mention that the speaker (Miss Malik) had an opinion about the issue?

Yeah, thats called BIAS.

I love how people screamed conflict of interest when the money was passed, but nobody questions whether the writer had an opinion about the issue.

And before you tell me that yes she had an opinion, but she refrained from letting it influence the article, think about it, and re-read the article.

Miss Malik, when you were at the Board meeting, did you frame what you said as a statement to elicit more information (i.e. a question) or rather, was it a statement that showed that you had an opinion about the issue? I think that the answer to that question will help with the issue of objectivity.

An editor of the Medium can have all the opinions they want. If they wish to write them out and get them published in a paper, they can do that too, there is a specific section for that, its called the Opinions Page. The article would, then, be called an Editorial. But this is not an editorial. This is an article. There is a difference.

And about the issue of bias. Come now, if anybody still defines media bias as only overt gestures (i.e. the Medium printing a headline “UTMSU siphons money to friend in need’), then I think you need to wake up and smell the fresh air. Just as their is such a thing like systemic racism (NOT calling somebody names, but denying them jobs and social services) and systemic sexism (NOT keeping women at home and not letting them vote, but rather making sure that they dont get the same pay as a man, for the same work, when both are equally qualified) there is such a thing as systemic bias in the media.

Some complaints: the fact that there was no mention of the fact that directors spoke in favor of the motion, all the quotes from the UTMSU executive were from a statement issued to the Medium, when there were some very eloquent speeches made at the meeting itself, etc. And really, if youre telling me that the style of writing, using certain words to get reactions (calling the motion “controversial” , etc.) in no way reflects a bias, then you need to take a course in language, or even common sense.

It was not a debate. She told everybody a fact. She didn’t argue or rebut.

Simply participating in a meeting did not give her voting authority.

Bias is an intentional lack of objectivity. This article clearly presents both sides of the issue, quotes proponents and dissenters and even polls students to see their opinion. So where is the bias there?

If you are referring to Saaliha speaking out at the UTMSU board meeting, I believe she has made it clear that it was to clarify that were being used to motivate for the donation. She clearly stated above:

“After many people had already spoken against this donation and there was a question of student dollars. I simply stated that I have been on the needs based bursary committee for UTMSU for the past two years and UTMSU has not been able to give $1000.00 to a UTM student.”

It’s funny how no one has actually stated where there is bias in the article. Many people..actually let me rephrase that: two people have stated that Saaliha Malik is biased and incapable of objective journalism. But they have still not pointed out where it exists in the article. If someone has a personal opinion about something does that automatically make them biased?

Stop diverging the attention to the writter and talk about the actually issue!

Now before people start to point out my bias please note that I have not even given my opinion on this issue. In fact I could care less, but I do find it amusing how people who agree with the spending are not trying to create a dialogue and explain to people why this is good use the unions funds.