College Republicans at Stanford Accuse School Newspaper of Leftist Bias
“accused the paper’s reporters of stalking the group’s private events”
The College Republicans say they have screen shots of a candidate for editor of the paper basically admitting the publication is biased for the left.
The College Fix reports:
Stanford Daily forced to defend itself against accusations of leftist bias after internal document leaked
The Stanford College Republicans published two screenshots they argue proves The Stanford Daily is a “leftist propaganda outlet masquerading as an impartial news source.” The screenshots are of a platform written by a candidate running for the position of editor in chief of the student paper.
The post also included two screenshots of a candidate’s platform for editor in chief. The screenshots of the platform show the candidate, a current staff member of the paper, calling on the publication to embrace outright that it is a leftist publication, a viewpoint that already “permeates throughout the paper.”
“Shirking away from this or pretending that we offer truly unbiased reporting is not only intellectually dishonest, but also hinders us from pursuing the topics and ideas that matter and can make a difference,” the candidate wrote.
He also called on the paper’s news team to “offer a corrective in the form of more diverse opinions around campus.”
In their Facebook post published Sunday night, the College Republicans accused the paper’s reporters of stalking the group’s private events, publishing “completely false stories,” and defending “the violent anti-Semitic RA, Hamzeh Daoud,” who apologized and stepped down from his position as resident assistant after posting on Facebook that he wanted to “physically fight” Zionists.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Someone running for editor-in-chief uses the word “corrective” as a noun? He would not get my vote!
Accusing the Stanford Daily of being a left-wing screed is like accusing a dog of having a tail. The truth is not in doubt, but it is rarely, if ever, mentioned.