The Role & Responsibility of Comment

Comment sections across a broad variety of newspapers all share a common thread. The bulk of their published material will prove emotive for a sizeable portion of its readership. Individuals may empathise with views expressed in a given article. Others may be offended. On occasion a given issue may catalyse universal approval or (as one has come to appreciate in the past seven days) disavowal of its material. In context of a parochial University community consisting of a spectrum of nationalities, ideals and beliefs (such as Imperial College London) the margins for error are slight. In light of this I wish to briefly examine the boundaries for the Comment section. The balance of facility and mediation of opinion is the central dilemma for the Comment section. As was declared in the freshers’ issue in early October 2013 it is in place to provide an extra medium of communication for the student body. This commitment inevitably lies in the category of facility. If a student submits an article they do so in good faith. This should be honoured (where appropriate) during the process of editing and redaction. The majority of contributors submit a piece of writing on the basis of elemental and core convictions, heartfelt emotion or in light of personal experience. Recent pieces similar to those centred on the Interfaith Movement, access for the disabled or the changing dynamic of Kenya typify the core aspiration of the Comment section to voice rightfully emotive issues. Worldly reality means that many of these emotive issues originate from inequality, illness, conflict and even death. This changes the atmosphere of the Comment section with immediate effect. The focus of obligation for an editor should switch from the facilitation of informative opinion to its mediation. This choice is made in an effort to engender peaceful and affirmative discussion and debate. The mediation does not lie solely in the physical editing of an individual article. Mediation can be utilised by balancing a given article with a counter-article. This can prove to be insightful and constructive. My head-to-head with Rory Fenton on integrated education in the North of Ireland helped me to view the issue from a more objective perspective. In spite of this, the approach can backfire. Our readership will have realised this over the past week. Some topics are skewed towards one plaintive truth, at least in the eyes of the majority of the socio-political body. The editor, in such instances, should follow his or her ethical code and decide on an article’s suitability or offensiveness. On this basis it may be appropriate to reject or retract an article. The past week has forced me to appreciate that while Felix Comment is part of a student newspaper (which, by definition, should be optimistic and uplifting) due credence should be given to the screening process of input material from the student body. The section editors will endeavour to maintain the high standards of the newspaper in future issues. We’ll take criticism where it’s due.