Editor:
In voicing her opinions about the newspaper, Sheila Sayani (“”Letter to the Editor,”” Feb. 13) exploits a recent article about a student’s tragic death. Aside from suggesting that the staff and coverage are incompetent, Sayani petulantly implies, in self-aggrandizing strokes, that the readership demands more. Sayani’s tirade should have waited for a more fitting target.
Sayani asserts that the “”poorly written”” original article left readers with “”no closure.”” Most readers accept that sometimes articles lack closure because the events covered are, in fact, unresolved. Sadly, writers often feel the need to indulge a drama-thirsty audience. I believe the news article’s author was appropriate in serving readers’ needs, while respecting the needs of those involved in the tragedy.
Sayani says she learned, as editor of her high school newspaper, that getting quotes is “”very important.”” How nice. I’m sure she learned a lot as editor. Didn’t she also learn to avoid sensationalism and hyperbole? Didn’t she learn sensitivity to issues without climbing the nearest soapbox? Didn’t she learn that attacking is the worst way to endear a listener and the way to force your opinion, however valid, into impotent disregard?
Although most readers know article size is not necessarily proportional to relevance, Sayani slams the staff and readers: “”Clearly, the staff members seem to think that editorials on an ice cream parlor seem to vastly outweigh the importance of a death on campus. How insensitive.”” How insensitive of Sayani to imply that the editors were so deliberately and ignobly motivated. How insensitive to suggest that readers believe only long articles cover important issues. And how horribly insensitive to minimize Natalie Summerfish’s death by assaulting the article covering it, turning a sad and solemn event into a personal mouthpiece.
Most of us are patient and wait until details of such events come out naturally, from the proper authorities. Sayani clearly wants to be an investigative reporter — her tabloid sleuth act invokes a “”homicidal maniac roaming around, waiting to push people off buildings.”” In her third and fifth paragraphs, she searches vainly for answers. She demands, “”A student died — is that all there is to say?”” Good grief, Sayani.
Sayani begins and ends by saying that the original article isn’t her only gripe with the Guardian, but “”the last straw.”” The last straw before what? Before writing a productively critical letter, hoping to make positive changes? Or the last straw before Sayani decided to exploit a student’s death to vent her caustic spleen?
Why is Sayani so outraged? If she’s really concerned about insensitivity, why pick such a sensitive article to weigh in on? Why drop so many hints about how she could have done it better? Concluding with self-righteous disgust, she writes, “”Unquestionably, the paper lacks substance and a sense of importance.””
Unquestionably, her letter lacks a constructive purpose and displays an over-abundance of self-importance.
— Ryan Downey
graduate student
