When we first received copies of The Daily Utah Chronicle staff columns for the 2006 Rivalry Guide a few weeks ago, we knew we’d owe you an explanation for our actions.
Don’t be mistaken; both newspapers staffs provided thoughtful pieces that explore the history of the in-state rivalry. Moreover, several articles demonstrate true discipleship to football with insightful analysis of each team’s season. But, then again, there is an unhealthy dose of banal, boorish and utterly predictable columns hoping to incite offense on BYU campus. These columns are no surprise to us. The Chronicle’s contribution was similar last year.
Knowing this, some may ask why we allowed these columns to be printed in our publication. It’s simple really: it’s because we believe in the marketplace of ideas.
John Stuart Mill best described the marketplace of ideas as an environment where ideas and opinions could be exchanged and appraised just as easily as material goods in a grocery store. It is this underlying principle of free speech that has directed the evolution of our nation since its inception, and it continues to be a ubiquitous force in our society today. We owe many important social changes to the marketplace of ideas; but this privilege comes at a great price because the marketplace can be a stall of rotten ideas.
The quality of some of the columns earn a spot among the market’s spoiled mangos. The authors, for lack of enriched lexicons, resort to juvenile vernacular terms to delineate their thesis. Moreover, their inability to produce researched articles connotes a level of journalistic professionalism befitting tabloid talk shows on the E! Channel. Notwithstanding all this, we allowed the rivalry guide to be distributed with our daily publication because we trust our readers can judge the good from the rotten.
To publish is not the same as to endorse. In the end, the market’s customers determine an idea’s place on the shelves or next to the Dumpster.
