The Saint

[stu]

Just wondering what people think about the current quality of The Saint. I know it has never exactly been professional, but this year, it seems beyond ridiculous.

Factually incorrect assertions in the editorials, attacks on sabbaticals sans evidence("The Saint is watching you and you're inefficiencies Mr Bean. Please try and be on time for work in future, and at least attempt to do something when you get there")and generally appallingly written articles do not do much for its credibility.

Also, the atrocious spelling errors throughout. I mean, spelling 'expense' wrong in a front page sub-heading. Sigh. What does everyone else think?

[pelopidas]

The Saint is mostly comprised of meandering rants written by people more interested in seeing their name in print than writing a fair and objective article.

John Jelly was okay as far as I remember.

[bananaman]

Quoting stu from 00:13, 28th Oct 2005
Just wondering what people think about the current quality of The Saint. I know it has never exactly been professional, but this year, it seems beyond ridiculous.

Factually incorrect assertions in the editorials, attacks on sabbaticals sans evidence("The Saint is watching you and you're inefficiencies Mr Bean. Please try and be on time for work in future, and at least attempt to do something when you get there")and generally appallingly written articles do not do much for its credibility.

Also, the atrocious spelling errors throughout. I mean, spelling 'expense' wrong in a front page sub-heading. Sigh. What does everyone else think?

it sounds as if The Saint is maintaining the same high level of journalism it had when I was there.

[ezra]

the atrocious spelling errors throughout

What, like saying "you're" when the correct usage would have been "your"? Or was that verbatim?

[DrAlex]

Every time I buy an issue, I come away saying this will be the last time. I buy it because I support the idea, but as far as news and opinion go, I'd sooner read The Sun.

And surely the way the front page of this latest issue was worded and presented was bordering on a breech of rules on campaigning. Maybe you should have sent green smoke out of the Union chimneys.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[ARTooD2]

Apparently its more fun than a monkey in a paper bag...apparently....

[hr]

Many Bothans died to bring you this information...

[Prophet Tenebrae]

What rules of campaigning? The rectoral election is like a shrew fight.

Anyway, I think that unless the statement about David Bean was sarcastic it's rather poor taste, as he was one of the people who helped get them back in circulation.

In the past, I've said a great many things about the Saint... few of them good but I think the problem now is that the Saint just has so little to live upto in terms of reputation, it doesn't even bother.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.btinternet.com/~brother.war/white10-2.gif

[Paranoid]

I'm sorry to say that if you've got a problem with it, go sort it out! It is a student newspaper afterall, run by the students for the students!

I've never worked for the Saint before, or been a big supporter of it (I do read it just for the sake of something to do though), but it is a pretty clear cut solution, the editorials and reports and crap because those with something to say dont bother contributing!

In support of the Saint though, I would say that last year (being my last) I did enjoy some of the St2 articles such as the investigation into grafitti in toilets, and the other one about 5 guys trying to stay up for 48 hours on coffee or something like that (something vaguely along those lines anyway!)

[hr]

..I've got this pain down all the diodes on my left side...

[sweet]

Quoting Prophet Tenebrae from 15:29, 28th Oct 2005

Anyway, I think that unless the statement about David Bean was sarcastic it's rather poor taste, as he was one of the people who helped get them back in circulation.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.btinternet.com/~brother.war/white10-2.gif

If the Saint know something they think ought to be in print about a sab, then surely it ought to be irrelevant whether said sab has been nice to them? In fact, wouldn't it be worse to suppress such information, as it would imply... wossname. Cronism or nepotism or something - fill in the correct would with your fine imaginations.

Not that I'm saying what they wrote was right (what did they say anyway?

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I'm not suggesting that the Saint should supress information about someone that has done them a favour in the past - I'm merely saying that they shouldn't engage in their usual factually inaccurate reporting on someone that helped them.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.btinternet.com/~brother.war/white10-2.gif

[stu]

Quoting ezra from 13:59, 28th Oct 2005

the atrocious spelling errors throughout

What, like saying "you're" when the correct usage would have been "your"? Or was that verbatim?

See the editorial of the September 29 edition.

[flarewearer]

If you don't like the Saint, vote with your feet and don't buy it. If not then contribute to it and try and make it better. Can't say fairer than that.

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/glosoli.png

[Al]

"Can't say fairer than that."

And The Saint probably couldn't spell it.

[Jim]

Quoting stu from 00:13, 28th Oct 2005
Factually incorrect assertions in the editorials, attacks on sabbaticals sans evidence("The Saint is watching you and you're inefficiencies Mr Bean. Please try and be on time for work in future, and at least attempt to do something when you get there")and generally appallingly written articles do not do much for its credibility.

Im not saying it had anything to do with it but youve got to remmber that the saints editor is the girlfriend of one the Union officers. Theres no possibility that he was pissed of with David is there?

[jo.c.]

I have major issues with The Saint, mostly because they destroyed a relationship i was in when they decided to change their old 'should be together but aren't' feature to a one-off 'are together but shouldn't be' and gave my then boyfirend the idea everyone thought he wasn't good enough for me and he ended up breaking it off... i never found out who wrote it but if i do i will have words to exchange with them.

I do think that the spelling mistakes have become part of its charm though, it's only a matter of time before we are offered an issue of 'The Stain'.

[peeved]

What, is that it? Or are we forgetting that in this last issue, the Saint misquoted a member of the GIG (getting him kicked off the committee) and slandered both the GIG and the KK, two organisations which do more in terms of good social events in this town than the Union could ever hope to do?

[Grandpa]

I'm going to write honestly and not bother if I piss a few friends off whilst doing so. If they don't like it they should review their 'ethics' or lack of them...

The style that The Saint is written in is more of a third class news of the world - if the news of the world is not third class anyway, then I need say no more about the saint....but I will....because I like saying what I think...

The constant spelling mistakes show a adject lack of time put into quality control of articles. I found four in one article alone this afternoon.

Surely these guys know how to use their spell checkers/grammar checkers?

They quote people as saying there are ''double standards'' in how they conduct their affairs re. drugs, however, the saint also attacks the university for not being open enough with its info on drugs, then says (and I can't quote because I don't have a copy infront of me) words to the effect of 'everyone agrees that there is a drugs scene'.

What this says to me is that the quality of writing is abismal. Look a bit closer and you'll see what I mean. The writer states that they were told that less than one tenth of one per cent of students come looking for help with a serious drugs problem.

Surely if we needed to do more about a problem that largely isn't there right now, then we would.

As it is, I certainly don't condone the use of illegal substances, in any sense whatsoever - but I also demand a decent student newspaper which isn't going to constantly further itself from the student body with articles such as the drugs article, 'are together but shouldn't be', and attacks on sabbatical staff.

'The Saint' needs to watch it's back.

I know they think they're untouchable in their little world of voice recorders, telephones and contacts, but this certainly isn't the case.

Also:

Quoting Jim from 17:55, 28th Oct 2005

Im not saying it had anything to do with it but youve got to remmber that the saints editor is the girlfriend of one the Union officers. Theres no possibility that he was pissed of with David is there?

Actually, Jim, this was the case. Mr Ben Nicholson made it abundantly clear to me that he thought he'd done far too much in comparison with the amount of work he thought Mr David Bean had been doing.

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]

[stu]

Also:

Quoting Jim from 17:55, 28th Oct 2005

Im not saying it had anything to do with it but youve got to remmber that the saints editor is the girlfriend of one the Union officers. Theres no possibility that he was pissed of with David is there?

Actually, Jim, this was the case. Mr Ben Nicholson made it abundantly clear to me that he thought he'd done far too much in comparison with the amount of work he thought Mr David Bean had been doing.

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s][/quote]


So, to recap - the editor is, well, not very good.

[David Bean]

I've never commented publicly on this matter before, and I don't want to get into the substance of the allegations the Saint made against me - I'm glad to say that things have pretty much blown over after what was an absolutely horrendous and heart-rending week for me when that issue came out - and nor do I want to make any comment about the newspaper itself, but I do want to clear up one important point of fact.

I read in the Times a couple of weeks ago something I took very much to heart, because I knew better than most people its importance: that of the 'rules' of journalism - rules of ethical conduct in journalism, or of journalistic integrity, that is - there are two that stand out. The first is, always protect your sources. The second? Never print an attack on any person, without giving them a chance to respond or defend themselves first.

The first I heard of that article, and the accompanying editorial, was the night before the issue arrived, when it had already gone to print. I was informed that I'd have the right to reply by letter, but that was it.

Journalistic integrity? I'll leave it at that.

[hr]

I'm your Guardian Angel.

[Grandpa]

Quoting stu from 18:06, 29th Oct 2005
So, to recap - the editor is, well, not very good.

I didn't say that.

[hr]

[s]Cogitationis poenam nemo meretur, facias ipse quod faciamus suades - pax vobiscum.[/s]