WRGW "News" Biased & Speculative Throughout SA Elections

***It just so happens that this week, my Internet & Politics is requiring us to provide a media critique for a campus news outlet.

Finally, the SA elections are over and I can say what I actually think about WRGW's coverage of the whole thing. I'll be upfront and say that I was working on Xochitl Sanchez's campaign for the presidential race, but I think my analysis of their coverage is fairly logical and accurate. And that's more than I can say for their coverage of Xochitl's candidacy.

This first time WRGW revealed its bias in the presidential race was on Febuary 10th. And I guess if I'm being really honest, when I say WRGW, I really mean Assistant "News" Editor Dan Keylin. His opening blog about her candidacy stated that "at this point of the announcement process Lifton is the overwhelming favorite." Says who, Daniel? Do you have a poll to back that up? Because I didn't see one.

Dan Keylin will go on to make more statements like that for the next two weeks. More often than not, he has no substantial evidence to back up his claims. He also felt the need to add this disclaimer to the blog post I mentioned above:

"Interestingly, when I tried to join the group I was rejected, a little unexpected for an SA presidential candidate trying to gain some support early in the campaign."

Who the hell cares? That's not news, that's your egotistical commentary.

Ten days later on February 20th, Dan was at it again. I'll give him some credit though, his breakdown of Xochitl's debate performance that night was fairly accurate. But, he was sure to get his plug for Jason Lifton, calling Jason's debate performance "very, very strong."

I realize that the disclaimer at the top of this post said these were solely the views of the author. However, you can't be both an opinionated blogger and be seen as an objective "assistant news editor" at the same time. Pick one.

I'm going to keep going with the examples, because quite frankly WRGW News just really pissed me off this month. February 23rd, WRGW News posted its endorsement for Jason Lifton for President on its blog. Shocker. The endorsement points out that "Jason will be able to hit the ground running on these policy matters from day one." Didn't Hillary Clinton already use that line?

To be fair, she also received some positive/neutral coverage from WRGW on the 23rd. But the post that talked about Xochitl's advantage with the freshmen vote wasn't posted by Dan, it was posted by Alexa Vogel.

And I've saved the best for last! I couldn't help but laugh when I read the results of the polls that were conducted by WRGW. WRGW released a straw poll from their debate, which I conveniently can no longer find on their Web site. From that poll, Dan speculated that Xochitl would be getting a larger number of PIKE and Phi Psi votes based on the results of the straw poll.

First of all, the poll was conducted with 50 participants. Anyone that knows anything about polling, would tell you that you need at least 100 participants in a perfectly weighed poll to be even close to accurate. Second, there was only one Phi Psi in the room that night and he didn't vote!!! Where Dan Keylin got that "analysis" from I'll never know. It certainly didn't come from the poll.

The second poll, was of 369 voters for the Presidential race. But, the poll states that results only reflected likely and very likely voters (aka 58% of 369, or 214 people). They don't have any numbers as to how many of those were freshmen, sophomores, juniors, or seniors and don't include graduated students. Now the poll again acknowledges that is not scientific, but it's so unscientific that why even publish it?

My last example comes from Dan's most recent post, today. He called the results of the election, a "surprising nail-biter." By who's standards was that surprising? Based on his poorly conducted poll, I guess I can see his point though.

Make the SA Candidates Hear You

This Friday, February 19th, WRGW News will be hosting the first official Student Association Debate at 7pm in the Marvin Center Ampitheater (3rd floor).  From Director Jared Pliner:

Today, it is my distinct privilege to announce that WRGW News - a division of WRGW/GWRadio - will host and moderate the 2010 WRGW News - Student Association Debate for the very first time in the station's 81-year history.

We are excited for this wonderful opportunity to serve and inform the GW community this election season, and it is my hope that this will become an annual tradition for many years to come.

The debate will be in two parts, the first featuring EVP candidates Jon Binetti, Logan Dobson, Josh Goldstein, and Rob Maxim and the second featuring SA Presidential candidates Jason Lifton and Xochitl Sanchez.  Pliner, along with Assistant News Directors Dan Keylin and myself, will ask the candidates questions in a typical debate format.

But more importantly, we'll be allowing you, the students, to ask questions of the candidates.  They can be about anything: what do you care about?  What bothers you about GW, or the way the SA works?  What do you want next year's administration to do for you?  It is important to make sure the candidates are aware of your stances on the issues so that you can hold them accountable and make them earn your support.

Even if you don't have a particular question you'd like to ask, this debate is still an excellent opportunity to find out about the candidates and their platforms before going to the (online) polls on February 24th and 25th.

And if you can't make it to the debate in person, you can listen live and follow our live blog of the event.

Hope to see you there,

Alexander Laska
Assistant News Director
WRGW News

Dept. of Waning Patience

When will the SA Student Court release its opinion detailing the exact rationale behind the decision in Boyer v. JEC?

Who knows.

This is certainly by no means a hot topic anymore, at least in most quarters, but I was looking forward to reading an opinion that had the potential to lay to rest much of the ambiguity surrounding SA elections, standards for future candidates, courts, and JECs, and many other things. Oh well. It's bound to come eventually.

BREAKING: Boyer to remain off ballot

The Decision and Orders of the Court, affirming the JEC's rulings, can be downloaded here.

From the decision (almost the whole thing):

In a 2-1 decision, this Court finds:

that the Joint Elections Committee did not abuse its discretion with regard to JEC Finding of Fact and Order S09-056, and

that the Joint Elections Committee did not abuse its discretion with regard to JEC Finding of Fact and Order S09-057.

Therefore, this Court orders:

that JEC Order S09-056 be affirmed,

that JEC Order S09-057 be affirmed, and

that the order of disqualification against Mr. Boyer be affirmed.

While the members of this Court disagree with the analysis of the JEC, and perhaps even the outcome, they recognize the deference due to the JEC and cannot find an instance of abuse of discretion.

A formal opinion will be issued by this Court in compliance with the Bylaws of the Student Court.


IT IS SO ORDERED.

Christopher Wimbush
Chief Judge

This is the most interesting part:

While the members of this Court disagree with the analysis of the JEC, and perhaps even the outcome, they recognize the deference due to the JEC and cannot find an instance of abuse of discretion.

The opinion will definitely be an interesting read. In my estimation, the court just gave the JEC a lot of discretionary power that it did not enjoy before. No doubt the opinion will come with a lot of warnings to future JECs.

Also, the "abuse of discretion" standard will now most likely be the standard for going after JEC decisions in the future, not "arbitrary and capricious." Those words are not found anywhere in the Decision and Orders. Boyer was fighting to establish arbitrary and capricious behavior, the JEC contended that the abuse of discretion standard was the yard stick that should be used by the court.

Congratgulations James Bonneau and the JEC. You argued a good case.

Bindelglass v. Polk will move forward tomorrow.

Showdown Tuesday Night - Boyer v. JEC

Inside the SA broke the news this morning.

The Student Court will hear Kyle Boyer v. JEC this Tuesday night. Time and place TBD.

To see the (rather stern) writ of certiorari issues by Chief Judge Christopher Wimbush, click here.

From the writ:

Each side will be given 30 minutes to clearly and succinctly present their arguments. While the Chief Judge retains the authority to grant each side additional time to present arguments, no such additional time will be granted in this case. Requests for rebuttals will also not be granted in this case. The Court also advises parties that their oral arguments be direct, focused, and well- articulated. The Court also recommends that parties avoid excessive use of legalese in their briefs as well as in their oral arguments.

To what I'm sure will be to your great delight: GWBlogSpot will be liveblogging the trial.

Since the election cannot constitutionally be held any later than the 25th-26th, an opinion will almost certainly come out Tuesday evening.

It's going to be a busy day.

Boyer's Ticking Clock

(Before this post begins - I am no expert on the SA. In fact, quite the opposite. However, I have recently learned a bit and feel that I have the capacity to write this post analyzing the process. If you know a lot about the SA and spot any errors here, sound off in the comment section.)

It's been a hectic few days at GWBlogSpot, with everything that has been going on at the SA and JEC.

As we've commented in previous posts, and Boyer's campaign has confirmed, the next logical step for his campaign, in order to get back on the ballot, is to file a lawsuit with the SA Court challenging the JEC's ruling to disqualify him.

We now know that the election is scheduled for the 25th-26th. We return from Spring Break on the 23rd.

Even if Kyle filed tomorrow, or first thing on the 23rd when we return, something tells me that it will not be enough time for the court to schedule a hearing and rule on the issue. In the last lawsuit Kyle was involved in, the signature issue, the entire process took several days.

What will happen if he files and there is no time for a full hearing? Can the court issue an order to push the election back yet again? Will the SA get involved and move the runoff for a second time? Will the issue be heard by the court after the runoff, rendering it all moot? Will Kyle even bother to file an appeal, as his campaign has indicated it will, given the time constraints?

Who's to tell at the moment? But whatever happens, the clock is ticking.

UPDATE: Just for fun. Prediction: Kyle files on the 23rd, the Court orders another delay in the election, pending the court's ruling, which will be in early April. I won't speculate beyond that. Any of you have a prediction? Sound off in the comments section.

EXCLUSIVE: Nick Polk Speaks

Exclusive statement from Nick Polk, emailed in to GWBlogspot:

"The confusion surrounding the election has definitely been unfortunate but I am excited to re-enter the race and continue working to put my goals out there."

Breaking: Kyle Boyer off the Ballot

At a special election meeting tonight, the JEC found SA presidential candidate Kyle Boyer guilty of 5 violations.

Three were for overspending, one was for not reporting the use of a car, and one was for not reporting buying facebook ads.

Kyle therefore has a total of 8 violations, and was kicked off the ballot.

During the middle of the JEC announcement in Columbian Sqaure, Kyle got up from his seat and left the area.

Kyle does have the option to file an appeal in SA court.

SA Runoff Candidate Debate

Free video streaming by Ustream

Yes, SA, you may have a flood of worthless candidates

I am not a fan of SA politics (But I want you to run for an office - to learn why, keep reading).

Actually, I am not a fan of the SA in general. It produces huge egos and personalities who feel entitled to engage in public fights over issues that, 95% of the time, will not impact me and only affect those actually having the arguments that we are all forced to read and hear about.

Despite this, I am going to write about SA politics. I am not an expert on the venerable institution and I have only stumbled across this issue recently, but it has got me absolutely fuming.

Here you can find the "Decision and Orders of The Court of the George Washington University Student Association" (here is the full opinion) that affirms the passage of a bill stating that signatures are no longer required to run for a position within the SA (See, that's why I want you to run).

Here's a post on The Hatchet's website by Emily Cahn. An excerpt from the article is below (the emphasis is mine):

Signatures are no longer needed in order to run for a position within the Student Association after the Student Court voted to sustain the SA Senate’s veto override from this Tuesday night’s meeting.

...

SA President Vishal Aswani’s Vice President for Judicial and Legislative Affairs, Jordan Chapman, claimed that two-thirds of the entire senate body must vote in order to overturn a veto. However the court sided with Boyer, asserting that two-thirds of senators present and voting at the meeting was enough to garner a veto override.

Because the Court’s decision came a day before the candidate registration period ended, the Court ruled to extend the registration period until noon on Feb. 17, giving candidates an extra three and a half days to get their name on the ballot.

A longer version of that story is expected in Tuesday's Hatchet.

This means several things, some more immediate and some more lasting, if indeed judicial precedent exists in the SA (from my basic knowledge of the organization, it probably does not):

1. Fuzzy Math
Forevermore (if precedent applies), not the whole SA Senate, but a simple 2/3rds majority of a QUORUM of Senators can override a Presidential Veto. A quorum (from my basic understanding of this institution) is 13 Senators. Bear with me, readers, because now is when we get into the procedural stuff that Mr. Robert and the SA Barons like to opine about.

Quorum is 13. 2/3rds of 13 is 8.67, and since we won't be chopping up any of our upstanding SA Senators, that makes 9. If 9 people constitute 2/3rds of a quorum, that means that 9 senators (of around 30) can override a Presidential Veto. Talk about undermining the executive branch.

In short: 9/30 = 2/3.

Figure it out, GW, because now it's law.

2. Kyle Boyer: Masochist
Current SA Executive Vice President (who presides over the SA Senate) Kyle Boyer is a candidate for SA President.

Mr. Boyer was the main proponent of the "9 votes constitutes a 2/3rd majority in a 30 person governing body" legislative philosophy that prompted the lawsuit in the GW SA Court. He was the primary defendant.

Congrats on taking away one of the primary powers of the office you are pursuing, Mr. Boyer!

Ouch. Maybe should have thought of that one.

Number 3 (with a bullet): A High Probability of Crappy SA Candidates - You can be one too!
Yes, GWBlogSpot reader, you can be an SA Senate Candidate with naught but a pen stroke! Just fill out this form, drop it off at the Marvin Center Room 433/436 before noon on Tuesday, and you're in!

You don't have to campaign, you don't have to walk around and gather signatures to prove that you actually WANT the job, you can just fill out the form and further dilute the already somewhat milquetoast field of candidates for any number of SA offices.

I encourage everyone to take advantage of this unique opportunity to really mess with one very annoying institution.

Sign up to run - it's as easy as signing your receipt at Pita Pit. No, it's even better, it's free! And your name will be on a ballot! A real ballot! How cool is that?

Think of all the things you could do, even if you don't win! "George Washington University Student Association Presidential Candidate 2009" would look awfully impressive on a resume!

No effort necessary! Run for the SA, and turn it in before Tuesday at noon at the Marvin Center Room 433/436.

It's just too amusing not to.