If you have paid attention to the opinion section of The Observer recently, you may have noticed an overwhelming number of political commentaries being produced weekly. Trump, ICE and polarization are the subjects of countless articles — oftentimes regurgitating similar arguments from politicized mainstream media. I don’t mind this work; the point of writing in a public domain in this manner is to express ideas important to you. I read these articles, sometimes enjoy them and move on with my day. I assume the same for most of those who pick up student papers.
In an article titled “How to write a boring Opinion article,” Joshua Tran wonderfully (and hilariously) articulated that to write about politics is a surefire method of lulling your readers to sleep. Given the nature of this article, I apologize for any yawns I have already incurred. I want to agree with Tran — the cyclical nature of our political discussion can be mind-numbing, and more importantly, boring. On the occasion that I sometimes don’t enjoy a political article, I often question the article’s value. Was anything new presented? Did I see a take that reached beyond a retelling of Fox News or CNN messaging? Did the article attempt to legitimize a counterargument? Usually, the answer would be no. I understand the complexities of certain topics: Some articles are intentionally mainstream, and a well-thought-out counterargument is not always realistic. However, most of these articles — boring or not — remain honest and nonetheless important.
Nevertheless, I have recently seen some non-boring articles that don’t abide by the same rules as their boring counterparts. After reading Sophia Lekeufack’s article, “Biased journalism in The Irish Rover,” an idea came to mind. I, like Lekeufack, find myself browsing the Rover periodically, and I often come across intellectually stimulating, honest and valuable articles. Although I may disagree with a point or two, I can understand the integrity of the argument. Unfortunately, there have been times when I have found articles that do not follow this manner.
The subject of Lekeufack’s article was a recent Rover piece that scolded a student organization and a professor on campus. This article was not boring. It brought something new to my attention, contained an in-depth investigation and quite damning commentary from sources (or lack thereof). However, I began to question the article’s legitimacy in light of the Rover’s professed views. I understand a disagreement from an argumentative standpoint, but are repeated public callouts of individuals such as this truly emblematic of the Rover’s self-proclaimed viewpoints, especially when subjectivity inarguably clouds the matter? I do not know the answer to that question. Although I don’t intend to call the recent Rover article dishonest, it begs the question of how much unbridled opinion can detract from honest journalism.
The content of the Rover, particularly in its Political and Campus sections, often carefully guides the selection of quotes and statistics to advance the author's opinion. Inherently, there is nothing wrong with this behavior. However, when this work is published and branded seemingly as news, not opinion, a veil of dishonesty is drawn over otherwise meaningful work.
This veil also obscures the message of other pieces — not in structure, but in content. I have observed moments in which Catholicism is used as a battering ram, rather than a foundational principle, to explain personal beliefs. I do not believe that I can definitively state what exactly is and what is not contrary to the Catholic identity, but I find themes of exclusion and divisiveness difficult to articulate alongside the charters of the Faith. And yes, there have been moments when I have seen these themes blindingly evident in Rover articles.
The Rover is not alone in its sporadic missteps. I have seen articles in The Observer that wear the same veil — an opinion is professed through haphazard and misleading means. Spending my high school years in a hyper-liberal Portland, Oregon, I have seen viewpoints I personally share expressed by others in ways so disastrous that I am ashamed to agree with them. This trend follows nationally. Liberal media strongholds such as MSNBC or The Atlantic are so eager to express a personal viewpoint that it denatures the value — and integrity — of their reporting. Even in sections marked for Opinion, a lack of attention to evidence or vigorously delegitimizing any opposition only serves to harm the credibility of the argument.
My aim is not to pick on the Rover, nor do I intend to equate its work with that of national media outlets; I believe the paper is essential in keeping open and meaningful dialogue on campus. However, as the sole student newspaper at Notre Dame that explicitly expresses a political ideology in its mission, its work is more susceptible to the ills I have described. Although I may ideologically disagree with certain views in the paper, the Rover has, and can continue to, beautifully articulate the value of the Catholic-conservative viewpoint at Notre Dame. Bias is innate to humans — it cannot be removed — but I believe it is a disservice to our own intellectual ability to intentionally write with bias and attempt to pass it off as objective.
There will never be a shortage of boring political think-pieces. I am aware that I have likely just joined this crowd — but we must remain honest with ourselves, with our argument and with those we address.
Naasei is a junior from Portland, Oregon living in the Coyle Community in Zahm Hall. When not burdened with overwhelming political science coursework, he enjoys photography and baking. He can be reached at wlynn@nd.edu.
