Dear Daily,
The Daily easily passed its referendum, implying that the McGill community largely believes campus is better with The Daily. In order to explain why this is so, examine one of the sole critiques The Daily received during the referendum period, from Leacock’s writer Christopher Wang.
The main argument in Wang’s article was that The Daily is too controversial. The Daily has a duty to “depict and analyze power relations accurately in its coverage.” In comparison, Leacock’s only duty seems to be depicting the latest trends in studded heels. When a paper is dedicated to examining serious issues, controversy is unavoidable.
In Wang’s article, Bull & Bear executive editor Dan Novick was quoted as stating, in reference to The Daily’s articles, “In terms of The Daily, they are sensationalist and they are crafted to attract attention.” The Daily receives attention because it launches attacks on norms many do not realize they carry. Most attention the Bull & Bear has received this year has been due to posting blatantly racist and sexist articles. Novick claimed the problematic articles were removed due to an outcry from the readers. Unlike the Bull & Bear, The Daily does not need an outraged student body to realize that publishing articles which compare women to animals is inappropriate.
Yet the most crucial aspect of The Daily is its status as a campus watchdog. The McGill administration rarely escapes criticism from The Daily. With the exception of the odd editorial, the Tribune usually acts as a slightly more popular version of the McGill Reporter.
The Daily is the best paper on campus because it covers important issues, is largely free of racism and sexism, and monitors the McGill administration. This is not to say The Daily is perfect, but rather that The Daily is the only paper crucial for a better McGill.
—Davide Mastracci
U2 History and Political Science student