EDITORIAL: Hornet learns from community outcry

State Hornet

In Issue 5, The State Hornet made the mistake of letting an offensive and inappropriate editorial cartoon run in our paper.

Early on the day of publication, Sept. 29, members of the Sacramento State community voiced their outrage through online comments and letters to the editor. As editors of the Hornet, we decided on Thursday to remove the cartoon and issue an apology.

While we still stand by everything we said in our online statement, we would like to take this time and space to express exactly how this happened, how sorry we are and what we have learned from this entire experience.

The Hornet, or Journalism 197A and B, is a journalism lab in which students come together and produce a newspaper. The editors are students, the reporters are students, the photographers are students and the editorial cartoonist is a student.

While we do have an adviser, Holly Heyser, she is not meant to be an active part of our production and/or to interfere with our decision-making processes. By design, advisers of college newspapers are meant to keep their distance from the actual production of the paper so that the publication is truly student-run. Our adviser does not give us permission, but is rather here to give us advice when asked.

The cartoon, “Why baseball is the best sport ever,” as the editors understood it, was meant to mock a column that ran in the sports section and show baseball scandals in a sarcastic light. Unfortunately, the cartoon had deeper implications that went beyond what most people call acceptable satire.

The editors responsible for reviewing the cartoon were wary of turning it down out of fear that we would be limiting the free expression and First Amendment rights of the artist. We now know that while legally the cartoon and our actions are protected, this right still must be exercised with sensitivity and caution.

As editors, we have learned that offending simply to get a reaction is not worth it. Provocative content should only be produced when the message behind it is loud, clear and worth the potential offense. If we decide that the message is worth it, then we will absolutely publish provocative work and defend our right to do so.

The offense caused by this cartoon, however, was not worth it. By printing this cartoon, we failed to provide meaningful or important content and instead published an offensive product lacking a message.

The implications and opinions expressed through this cartoon are not the opinion of the entire Hornet staff.

The Hornet does not discriminate against anyone. We do not find discrimination based on race, gender, class, sexual orientation, physical abilities or anything else comical. We do not find rape, sexual assault, violence or homophobia joking matters. And we certainly do not find the tragic homicide of Scott Hawkins as anything to make light of. Had we realized the reference to the homicide, we absolutely would not have printed the cartoon.

Here at the Hornet, we aim to be the paper that students, staff, faculty and alumni want to read. We aim to be the voice of Sac State.

Editors and staff members of the Hornet are proud to be Sac State students and want to make the Sac State community proud of us.

We want you to come to us for your news.

We know that we have lost some readers through this controversy, and we cannot blame anyone for being upset with us.

We are incredibly sorry for any unnecessary offense we have caused and we want to assure those in our community who choose to continue to read us that we will do our best to move forward from this experience and be a better newspaper.

With that being said, the Hornet editors have agreed to adopt a new policy, seen below, in regards to provocative and offensive content.

We hope that readers will stick with us and understand that we are still students and that your feedback is one of the most valuable tools for learning.

State Hornet policy regarding offensive and provocative content:

Being a newspaper, there are times when the production of offensive or provocative content may be the best or only way for us to make our message clear. However, as editors, we agree to work together to decide when the pros of spreading our message outweigh the cons of deeply offending our readers. While the decision is ultimately up to the editor in chief, we all agree to take more time and pay closer attention to detail in everything we publish. We also agree to more regularly seek the advice of our Professional Journalist in Residence and Adviser Holly Heyser, especially when dealing with sensitive or controversial content.

The editorial staff can be reached at [email protected].