isorox's Journal: Elections dicussion at exeter university

This discussion was sparked by this thread on xnet. We arent allowed to use xmedia to promote any candidates, and some how this means that we cant discuss them. It's a gracious shame. If you want to reply without fear of being censored, post away. Discussions of individual candidates is not allowed, however I cant delete or edit any replys to this message.

Candidates Websites

[isorox]

Why arent candidates allowed to utilise a website in their campaign? Many people have websites, or even blogs. Are we yet again peanilising those with a grasp of technology (very important if you want to be a member of the exec)?

Re:Candidates Websites

[byolinux]

This sucks.

Maybe they're trying to appeal to the sports science students?

Re:Candidates Websites

[Dannon]

Egads. I hear you.

Here in the U.S., it's become almost uncommon for a candidate for anything not to have a web site. From undergraduate representative on the student board at the local college to President of the United States. It's especially valuable for the "third-party" candidates who can't get a foot into the big debates: One of my preferred candidates posted video clips of his answers to questions asked by the moderator at each of the debates to which he wasn't invited. Good answers, too.

Also, here in the U.S., we're facing a new "Campaign Reform" law which will take effect in next year's election. In spite of the name, my prediction is that the main effect will be to reinforce the hold of incumbents on their offices, and restrict the rights of people who want to discuss issues and candidates in public on their own time and money.

And this in a country where "unpopular political speech" is supposedly protected by our Constitution.

Re:Candidates Websites

[ickle_matt]

The usual argument (I went through all of this as a Sabb at UCL) is that allowing candidates to use a website penalises those who aren't able to put up an all-singing all-dancing "Vote for me now" monstrosity as part of their publicity campaign.

My main opposition to that point was that we didn't rule out using Quark Xpress to design manifestos and posters just because some candidates still preferred pen and paper.

*That* statement

[isorox]

21st January 2003

FAO Guild Council

We, the Heads of X-Media, have instructed the Guild Communications Officer to
read out the following statement;

'We understand the importance of media impartiality where any public elections
are concerned. At today's Communications Sub-Committee meeting, we were
informed that, according to Guild Elections Policy, we would be unable to
report on the election process without the sanction of the Senior Elections
Officer.

More specifically, we feel that being able to freely report on a hustings in
any of the four branches of X-Media would help to make the hustings a more
open and democratic process. If we are unable to scrutinise candidates within
X-Media, the Guild is forcing its members to attend hustings to gain a more
accurate perception of the candidates than is available from the literature
written by the candidates themselves.

If X-Media is to be censored during its coverage of the elections, it will be
contravening its very definition as a media. Does this Council want four tools
for the distribution of press releases, or does it want a media which is
committed to the freedom to report events concerning Exeter's student
population?

Signed:
Fergus Campbell (Editor, Exepose)
Tamsin Caisey (Editor, Exepose)
Jamie Melrose (Comms Sub Committie)
Alex Sweetman (XNet webmaster)
Paul Weaver (XTV Station Manager)
Ben Woolvin (Xpression FM Station Manager)