Elise Viebeck '10 has just won the Eric Breindel Award. The award, endowed by News Corp. and named for the famous New York Post editor, carries with it a $10,000 stipend and is widely considered the most prestigious prize in collegiate conservative journalism.
This award was won last year by none other than The Claremont Independent's former editor-in-chief, John Wilson. As his friend and Claremont Independent writer, Kevin Vance describes the genesis of Wilson's September 2006 CI article, "Finding Burke Among the Street Sleepers," Wilson did hard-hitting report.
He traversed London with a homeless man and observed the horrendous effects of the welfare state on London's poor. Wilson spent the summer before his senior year working with immigrants at an inner-city church in London.
The Claremont Independent has much to celebrate, having now won the prize twice. Claremont McKenna College has much to celebrate, too. One cannot help but wonder if the college will issue a new press release, rightly praising Ms. Viebeck, as it did for Mr. Wilson. They ought to, if only to recognize a 5-month long undertaking.
At The Claremont Conservative, we applaud Viebeck for her numerous pieces on Professor Petropoulos and for her summer internship with National Review. We have already commented on both, extensively.
Still, while those articles were important, they weren't earth shattering and we wonder if too high a price was paid at The Claremont Independent, the erstwhile conservative publication of this campus.
Under Ms. Viebeck's tenure, The Claremont Independent has lost its editorial stance and has printed weak issues. To put it bluntly, the paper founded with the maxim, "Free Thought is Back!" is scarcely recognizable. Meetings were nonexistent, deadlines were seldom given and writers left.
She has even gone so far as to criticize me publicly and privately for being a self-promoter. (Is she the pot or the kettle?)Ms. Viebeck will be studying abroad next semester in Amsterdam and the publication will pass over to Ilan Wurman. Mr. Wurman will be returning from the Washington semester program where he worked for the White House serving his party and his country.
We look forward to helping Mr. Wurman implement his vision for The Claremont Independent.
Subscribe in a reader
14 comments:
This is a far cry from "beautiful and magnanimous," as you described Elise at the beginning of the year. This blog consists entirely of personal attacks, which is incredibly pathetic. People like Elise, and they don't like you; she is hardly the only person who has talked about you "behind your back." In fact, her comments are very tame compared to what other people say about your despicable rantings. If you want to be taken seriously, write about subjects that really matter, rather than merely insulting your fellow students.
Jane,
Thank you for the response.
This blog doesn't consist entirely of "personal attacks" as even a casual reader would know. One wonders how the post "Food Collins Will Have in the Future" falls into that category?
Jane, I have no strong feelings one way or the other about this post, but I am struck by the silliness of your complaint.
First you claim "this blog consists entirely personal attacks." When in actuality, only two paragraphs of this post (consisting of two sentences each) happen to have an attack in them.
And those attacks are hardly "personal." Charles actually criticizes how she ran the paper. He says nothing about her as a person. Correct or not, he is making an argument about how an important organization on campus was run and how it ought to be run.
Lastly, your hypocrisy is astounding. Not only do you confirm that Elise attacks Charles behind his back (tell me, are these "personal attacks?), but you also precede to write a bunch of attacks that are much more petty, mean-spirited, and unrelated to any public action than anything he's written:
"People like Elise, and they don't like you; she is hardly the only person who has talked about you 'behind your back.' In fact, her comments are very tame compared to what other people say about your despicable rantings."
Am I the only one who notices the irony?
Yet again I am always amazed how quickly people fire off childish rants whenever Charles criticizes somebody. Hello! The point of the blog is to criticize bad actions and praise good actions! People commit actions!
Jane, are we to presume that somehow your attacks are not "personal"? Even Tarzan would see through your logic.
The pot, I'm pretty sure. The kettle doesn't make any accusations of blackness.
As dangerous as this is, I think I'm going to have to side mildly on the side of the CC on this one. It's not all, or even mostly, personal attacks. A lot of the posts here are thoughtful and well-researched.
And wrong, obviously, but that's their prerogative.
That being said, too often this blog does wade into pointless attacks, often under the guise of humor or levity. It's not particularly funny, which makes you come off as more bitter and combative than anything else. Being a conservative on a liberal campus isn't easy, and I commend your dedication to your wrong notions, but don't spoil your goodwill by being so dickish about things.
Re: this particular post. As an outside observer, the content of the post per se wasn't an attack, but the spirit of it felt a little bit petty.
I'm afraid I not only believe this and every other post, I live it.
Live what ? The dickish-ness and pettiness ? We knew that already.
----ishness is neither a hobby, nor a calling. I prefer the term "dogged" or "persistent," but I suppose lesser men must use the vocabulary to which they are accustomed.
We were doing so well, and then you stooped to linguistic prescriptivism. Simply because you prefer a term doesn't make it any less applicable, and simply because a term is vulgar doesn't make it wrong.
Citizen X,
I like your logic, but I disagree with you on sides. I'm going to side with Jane here. As a self-described "outside observer," it's difficult to take into account that most of these personal attacks (rare/common/whatever) are against some of our good friends. When CJ erroneously states "Emily Meinhart is bad at math," Brad Walters hates free speech, and Elise Viebeck is bad editor, we take offense. Why? Because we know those are good people and we honestly can't say the same about the people who publicly humiliate them on this blog.
This doesn't have anything to do to anything, but wasn't a "return to normalcy" our rallying cry for electing the worst (though perhaps the best-looking) president ever?
Anonymous,
Are you capable of reading? I recognize that those who get offended often have that difficulty. As for "publicly humiliate," there I must take offense. Does the press "publicly humiliate" the President when they catch him in wrong doing? Of course not. If you seek being left out, then do not make public statements of coercion (such as Emily's) or writing nasty statements comparing us to horrific auto crashes (such as Brad's)
If you cannot take the heat from a free press, you have no business living in a free society.
If you are, you would recognize that one of those posts, the Emily Meinhardt is "bad at math" post was written by Dan O'Toole and the numbers he presented were compelling and proved unequivocally that Ms. Meinhardt inflated the numbers during the Trayless evenings and left Kevin Callahan to clean it up.
As for the Brad Walters post, I certainly stand by the one Aditya and I wrote which was rather tame discussing how he thinks we are comparable with an auto accident.
As for Elise Viebeck, my views were clearly laid out and supported by numerous members of the Claremont Independent. I have nothing further to say on the matter than what was written above.
As for Mr. Harding's tenure, I suppose the best things that can be said of him are 1) he was not Woodrow Wilson 2) he gave us Calvin Coolidge with his massive heart attack.
By the way, Harding was also a Klansmember. Where is the nut trying to suggest that I'm saying Ilan is also one?
Actually, I can read pretty well, and write posts with consistent style and proper grammar. But that's besides the point.
The press is one thing because it has some standards, this blog has none and attacks fellow students. It honestly doesn't matter who does the writing on this blog or you understand the words your "critics" say or I'm typing. We're still going to think your a jerk who resorts to ad hominem attacks to back his idiotic points. But that's our prerogative.
Post a Comment