Editorial: We're back!

When the Counter Point Journal (CxPJ) began publication in spring 2009, the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. However, we did get some negative responses. Some people thought we shouldn’t criticize the Cooper Point Journal (CPJ). Some questioned whether the college needed another newspaper. Some people demanded we justify ourselves. One pedant scolded us that “Counter Point” is one word. (Sure, and “Newsweek” is really two words. The point is?)

Though we’re not averse to constructive criticism—and we know we have a lot to learn—the majority of complaints had less to do with our content or process than with our very existence. That’s the status quo for ya. People are very dependent on the status quo as a frame of reference and feel threatened when things don’t conform to that status quo. (For a much more serious example, see Tenzin’s article below.) The CPJ exists as part of the status quo, and therefore its legitimacy is unquestioned. The Counter Point, as a newcomer, was treated as an intruder and judged with unique scrutiny. “We don’t need another newspaper.” “Why don’t you just work with the CPJ?” “Why do you have to be so contrarian?”

We created the CxPJ exactly because we weren’t being served by the status quo, and we weren’t alone.
Beginning in the spring 2009, the CPJ banned all opinion articles relating to the Palestine–Israel conflict. Their abtract rationale made no sense. According to Editor-in-Chief Jason Slotkin, the censorship was implemented for the sake of “inclusive discourse.” (You can read all about it in our April 2009 issue, at counterpointjournal.org) Even worse, Slotkin refused to print corrections to bold factual errors printed in the CPJ, including a fake quote by Martin Luther King.
The CxPJ formed in spring quarter 2009 after a number of us Evergreen community members expressed discontent with our interactions with the CPJ. Aside from our discontent, we shared an additional trait: We were all activists. Thus, rather than lament or whine about the CPJ, we did something about it. One month later, we distributed our very first issue of the Counter Point Journal. At 8-pages, issue one of the CxPJ contained 30% more content than the 20-page CPJ printed the previous week (in terms of word count), and we did it at a fraction of the CPJ’s budget and resources. Two more issues followed before the end of the 2008-9 school year.

Within that timespan, we faced financial and bureaucratic hurdles while attempting to work under the existing structure overseen by Student Activites, which proved near-impossible. We were threatened with defunding and pressured to work under the college’s Student Communications Media policy -- the same policy that granted the CPJ sole legitimacy while failing to hold it accountable. We couldn’t effectively challenge the campus authorities while working under their terms. So now we’ve gone independent. Our source of funding is donations, and more recently ad sales.

One of the articles in the first issue of CxPJ stated, “Hopefully this paper’s existence will serve to prod and remind the CPJ of its purported duties.” We regret that this has not happened. Instead, the CPJ tried to justify its actions. It responded to our criticisms in a column entitled “CPSay.” Unfortunately, CP didn’t say much. It didn’t cite any of our criticisms directly (or even reference our paper) and tried to justify its arbitrary policies with abstractions. Near the end of the 2009 school year, a single 16-page issue of the CPJ spent eight pages advertising itself in huge full-page ads and giant gray boxes, pleading for submissions.

The CPJ often claims that if you don’t like what you see in its pages, then submit something. We know it’s not that simple, and we won’t make that claim with our paper. We won’t pretend that we can please everyone. But if you don’t like what you see here, and you can’t submit something to us, we can help you start your own paper.