DE MINIMIS EDITORS
Volume 9, Issue 10
Over the past few weeks, De Minimis has become aware that certain elements of the student body feel that the publication has been overly critical of the Law Students’ Society. In particular, it has been suggested that De Minimis has actively sought out articles with an anti-LSS theme, or that editors have deliberately exaggerated or misrepresented facts to suit some overarching anti-LSS agenda.
We write this article to set the record straight.
De Minimis has, and always has had, a very clear policy: we publish anything that is not defamatory or grossly offensive and is of sufficient quality (we have previously reiterated this: see here and here). Consistent with this policy, we have not rejected a single student submission in 2016, and have in fact published seven articles by LSS committee members.
We do have a team of staff writers, but we do not exercise any editorial control over what they write or how they write it. We may from time to time ask an author if they are interested in writing a piece (for example, interviewing someone – like the Judge in Residence), but that’s where our influence stops.
Of course, we also edit articles when we receive them. This is, however, limited to grammar and fact-checking . We don’t exercise any control over the substance of articles. In fact, the closest we’ve come was in response to last week’s anonymous Law Ball Review, when we discussed asking someone to write a more positive one to ‘balance it out.’ That is, until we remembered that it isn’t our job to promote ‘balance’.
It’s our job to provide a platform for students to report on and debate issues relevant to students.
So this article serves two purposes: to provide clarity and to send an open invitation.
Clarity: We (the editors of DM) are not ‘out to get’ the LSS. We’re actually pretty damn impressed by how incredibly hard-working and passionate they are. That said, if people are criticizing the way they do their jobs, or suggesting ways they could do it better, we will facilitate that conversation in any way we can.
After all, they are student representatives, and that’s how democracy works.
Invitation: If you don’t agree with what we publish, then please, submit something yourself. Interestingly, we often see comments under online articles which would make for excellent response articles in themselves. Quite simply, if you comply with our standards (which, as you can see, are very lax indeed) we’ll publish. This clearly includes proposing ways we can do our job better.
The rest of this week's issue:
More articles like this: