Students Union publication 'Campus'

Shea O'Meara

Anyone see this?

http://life.dcu.ie/newsandevents/article/583/

giveliberty

Hang on a second, did I just read the last line of this correctly? Did they just used the words 'bum chum'?

Shea O'Meara

Why yes they did. Referring to a DCU student no less. Seemingly, if you say an article is 'Muck, pure muck.' You're spearheading a campaign of some sort and they resort to an inappropriate homophobic slur.

giveliberty

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Why yes they did.

That is highly offensive. I am really annoyed about this.

Dj Stiggie

What a loser, I didn't really mind the letters, some were kinda ok, but to get so annoyed over a couple of comments made by two users that he devoted his entire column to saying how much they upset them, and to then use the phrase "bum chum". Maybe they were right, he is special needs.

The SU really shouldn't allow the use of such derogatory terms

Daysha

Dj Stiggie wrote: »

The SU really shouldn't allow the use of such derogatory terms

The SU shouldn't have let any of the articles go ahead in the first place. The whole thing has been a farce from start to finish.

It's a page-filler of the worst kind.

Dave03

1st off if said person doesn't like the column.....Don't read it! Let alone make disbarraging comments about it.

As for the student union allowing that to be printed it is poor. Nobody is in the right anyway.

GLaDOS

Campus is muck and those letters are muck (this being the second I've read).

The term "bum-chum" wouldn't bother me too much but is not something you'd expect from a SU. Not surprised though, always struck me as a very unprofessional publication, while I'd quite happily read College view.

On a side note, does anyone actually believe a word of those letters? They give me the impression of a 6th classer's attempt at a short story.

Dave03

ScienceNerd wrote: »

On a side note, does anyone actually believe a word of those letters? They give me the impression of a 6th classer's attempt at a short story.

Thats the way i thought they were meant to come across as. I'd be very surprised if they were meant to be taken seriously.

Shea O'Meara

Dave03 wrote: »

1st off if said person doesn't like the column.....Don't read it! Let alone make disbarraging comments about it.

Then what's the 'comments' box for underneath it? And how would you know whether you liked it or not if you never read it? Sure it's posted on the Life website for one, in the 'News' section no less.

Dave03 wrote: »

As for the student union allowing that to be printed it is poor. Nobody is in the right anyway.

'muck' as a criticism of a published article in one thing. A publication referring to a student, an actual person, it supposedly represents in an insulting manner is what's wrong.

Dave03

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Sure it's posted on the Life website for one, in the 'News' section no less.


'muck' as a criticism of a published article in one thing.

Its also usually in the back of the campus magazine , i think?

Looked at the comments posted on life about the articles, if the user didnt like the article why read it every week to give out?

:|

Constructive criticism?

I'd like to comment to say how bad i think it is but I don't want a full magazine dedicated to slagging me off next week.......

Shea O'Meara

The comments have questions too. along the lines of 'what the hell is this?' If the writer is so precious about their work that he/she can't take a few impersonal knocks they should quit.
The 'bum chum' thing is pretty unreal though.

VinnyTGM

People have been saying to me that this guy isn't real, sure you would be able to suss out who it was if you half knew him.

Shea O'Meara

I see the article has been removed from the website.

:|

I don't think its meant to be real though guys......

irish_boy90

after reading last weeks i'm sure its not real.

He scored a tranny and wrote about it in campus?

Shea O'Meara

It's not for real. Firstly, it's written *cough* in two different voices; announcement of student activities/pat on the back for the SU Bobby and Learning impaired Daniel O'Donnel Bobby. 'Bobby' changes personality throughout. Secondly, who writes like that to their mother about 'bum chums' and such. Thirdly, who writes letters? How did it transpire,"Hello, Campus. I'm a F***wit from the country, do you wanna print my letters to my mammy?":D
'Muck' it may be, offensive, childish even, but 'for real' it is not.

Hey, how about dropping this filler and giving the page to a charity to advertise for free?

Matthewthebig

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Campus is muck and those letters are muck (this being the second I've read).

The term "bum-chum" wouldn't bother me too much but is not something you'd expect from a SU. Not surprised though, always struck me as a very unprofessional publication, while I'd quite happily read College view.

You honestly think the College View isn't unprofessional? That paper is an utter rag.

GLaDOS

Matthewthebig wrote: »

You honestly think the College View isn't unprofessional? That paper is an utter rag.

I never said it was professional, just that I like reading it and is vastly superior to campus

Urizen

It was considerably better last year. However, judging from two issues you can't get the big picture anyway.

College View is arrogant, idiotic drivel. Enough on that thing. Campus retaliated too far, but whatever moron commented on it like that in the first place is just as wrong.

douglashyde

AGREED. It's very arrogant, it would be great to see Campus going in a more independant direction while not losing its funding.

Shea O'Meara

Urizen wrote: »

It was considerably better last year. However, judging from two issues you can't get the big picture anyway.

College View is arrogant, idiotic drivel. Enough on that thing. Campus retaliated too far, but whatever moron commented on it like that in the first place is just as wrong.

I take it you write for Campus and/or are in the SU?

Anyone is free to say or comment (there being a 'comment' box under each article) as they see fit, regarding the quality of an article. To state the preference for favourable comments is understandable, but to throw a hissy fit when they are not, is a little pathetic and sad.
It is those particular articles in Campus that are idiotic drivel and the person who used the term 'Bum Chum' that is the only moron in my view. The fact that the SU/Campus felt the need to retaliate, to comments made on a particular article involving a fictitious character, shows poor character on their part and a complete lack of grasping the fundamentals of journalism and publishing such within the public domain.

Shea O'Meara

douglashyde wrote: »

AGREED. It's very arrogant, it would be great to see Campus going in a more independant direction while not losing its funding.

That's impossible. It's the Student Union mag and can only be as independant as the SU itself.
What, do you think people would pay for it?

Somnus

That Dear Mammy is a load of shíte. It's quite obviously not real so what's the point? Although I think Campus is **** in general. Never grasped me, I look at the pictures page to see if there's anyone I know then just leave it back. But the Dear Mammy is stupid and if they're trying to make it sound real they're doing a terrible job.
No one would talk about kissing a guy and use phrases like bum chum (I think there were other phrases in the one before it that seemed a bit doubtful that anyone would use with their parents.)

Waste of space

Urizen

The SU are not to blame for that article. The editor of Campus is. He took things personally and made a mistake. Simple as that.

irlande

Urizen wrote: »

The SU are not to blame for that article. The editor of Campus is. He took things personally and made a mistake. Simple as that.

Bingo!

PixyChick

Urizen wrote: »

The SU are not to blame for that article. The editor of Campus is. He took things personally and made a mistake. Simple as that.

The Union is the publisher and therefore has to accept full liability for anything it publishes. It is really that simple.

More importantly the Union has accepted responsibility for this and will be issuing an apology.

Now whether you agree with homosexuality is another thing. But this was just a silly boy making a silly mistake.... something that was highly offensive, especially if you are straight.

Daysha

Urizen wrote: »

The SU are not to blame for that article.

Isn't it "The Oh-fish-al SU magazine" (or whatever bizarre tagline they come up with). Like the above poster said it's their publication and they're to be held responsible.

Urizen

Ok, obviously some confusion. The Union have apologised because it's official. However, no one but the Editor saw this particular piece before publication, due to reasons I'm sure the Union will explain in detail soon. The blame may rest with the SU officially, but the fault lies with just one personl.

legendal

Urizen wrote: »

The blame may rest with the SU officially, but the fault lies with just one personl.

In the eyes of the law, where the blame rests "oh-fish-ally" is important. In defamation cases you get managing directors and publishers who never saw the article getting dragged in. And there's a section in the Defamation Act that provides for a homosexual who was offended by this article to take such a case (even though it'd cost loads and really wouldn't be worth their while).

mehfesto

PixyChick wrote: »

Now whether you agree with homosexuality is another thing. But this was just a silly boy making a silly mistake.... something that was highly offensive, especially if you are straight.

Just out of curiosity, why was is it more offensive for a straight person to be called a 'bum-chum' than a gay person?

PixyChick

mehfesto wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, why was is it more offensive for a straight person to be called a 'bum-chum' than a gay person?

Would you want to be labeled homosexual if you are not?

mehfesto

PixyChick wrote: »

Would you want to be labeled homosexual if you are not?

That wasn't my question though.

I asked why is it more offensive to be labelled a 'bum-chum' if you are straight? The term is derogatory regardless of your sexual orientation. To suggest that homosexual people are happy with that term more than straight people are is just ridiculous.

Daysha

Urizen wrote: »

The blame may rest with the SU officially, but the fault lies with just one personl.

I can understand the author is the one that puts it down in writing, but that doesn't mean the SU aren't at fault here. For all we know they didn't follow correct procedure and proof-read the magazine before it was sent away to the publishers. They either a) missed it when reading over the magazine beforehand, b) trust the author enough not to write anything he/she shouldn't write, or c) worst of all, saw the "bum chum" remark before it went out and deemed it acceptable to be published.

Either way, some sort of fault lies with the SU no matter what way you look at it.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Overreaction to some tripe which should be ignored altogether?

carlowboy

Urizen wrote: »

Ok, obviously some confusion. The Union have apologised because it's official. However, no one but the Editor saw this particular piece before publication, due to reasons I'm sure the Union will explain in detail soon. The blame may rest with the SU officially, but the fault lies with just one personl.

I'd really love to hear these reasons. The publisher should always read what they're publishing, it's very simple. Therefore, it's the SU's fault and responsibility.

doylema3

interesting to see how this thread has go off on such a tangent. Maybe it was meant to be serious at first, with this Bobby chap actually existing (i doubt it), though it has become one of the few points in Campus that let it down (campus fan here).

anywho... judging from this weeks letter, not only is it over, but it does look like it was all a made up joke, either that or the first year in question got fed up been called a twat

Landa2

Lads, lets be honest here.. forgetting those posting now as bobby and bobby's mammy.. this whole debacle started on these forums when certain students persisted to take the piss out of an artical in the SU Publication and trolling persistant trollop about the letters..

The letter in last weeks campus might have been a bit suspect, but its been blown completely out of proportion.. bum chums, cohorts, little gang.. its all the same.. its not campuses fault that the people posting here twisted it to mean something else completely..

Cop on lads,

Why not scrap the paper version of campus?

• Cuts Printing Costs
• Would allow for more content on a weekly basis
• Allows for more people to contribute

While I may not be the biggest fan of campus mag at the moment, I still think it is an important thing for DCU. Most, if not every student, goes online every week. If campus mag was a solely online magazine, it would drive more traffic to life.dcu which would make the whole thing worth the money. You could have a last.fm style events calendar where people can sign up online for events. Every club or soc's PRO could post updates of what their society has been up to. The whole gallery complaint (same people every week etc etc.) would be gone as anyone could upload their own pictures and in turn only view the pictures that they want to. Also, probably the biggest thing, it would cut costs in that there would be absolutely no printing costs.

Life.dcu is a great resource that is hardly touched by students and the SU don't seem too fond of it either this year (lack of events on the events section). Putting campus online will get people involved more and hopefully stop the ****e that seems to be going around about it...

aDeener

who cares, all these college publications are horse dung anyway

Shea O'Meara

Landa2 wrote: »

Lads, lets be honest here.. forgetting those posting now as bobby and bobby's mammy.. this whole debacle started on these forums when certain students persisted to take the piss out of an artical in the SU Publication and trolling persistant trollop about the letters..
The letter in last weeks campus might have been a bit suspect, but its been blown completely out of proportion.. bum chums, cohorts, little gang.. its all the same.. its not campuses fault that the people posting here twisted it to mean something else completely..
Cop on lads,

So, forget what was just posted (and deleted), forget that last weeks Campus might have been 'a bit suspect'?
What's wrong with taking the piss? We can't comment on Campus unless we applaud it? Cop on yourself.
Far jump from referring to an article as 'Muck' and calling someone a 'Bum Chum'.


Here's a 'bit suspect':

1. (idiomatic, derogatory) A male’s Homosexual partner.

Brought on by:

1. To shovel muck. We need to muck the stable before it gets too thick.
2. To do a dirty job.
3. To make an error or do a bad job.

People simply slagging off an article they didn't like, in the correct forum.
You are correct, it was blown completely out of proportion, but by the SU.

gizmo

Trolling accounts site banned and thread cleared up.

Regarding the issue of taking Campus completely online, that's not a bad idea actually ru and may actually drum up some more mainstream interest in life.dcu. On the other hand, this is coming from someone who doesn't mind going online to get news etc.. and unfortuantely I'm not sure if the rest of the student body would do the same.

As for the article itself, well having read those that were available online I'm nearly more surprised it was still being included in the magazine, talk about worthless unfunny page filling nonsense. The "bum chum" comment itself was also silly, should have been pulled during proof reading and will now probably be the cause of an apology in a subsequent issue. Talk about a waste of time over something something so trivial. :rolleyes:

Landa2

it was blown completely out of proportion by both sides, before i even posted on this thread it was 4 pages long..

**UPDT
It is now 3 since it was cleaned up by our friendly moderation team

Cid-Highwind

gizmo wrote: »

Regarding the issue of taking Campus completely online, that's not a bad idea actually ru and may actually drum up some more mainstream interest in life.dcu.

It's a terrible idea, no offense ru

The point of campus (imo, i'm not in that SU thing anymore), is to print whatever information the SU thinks is important for students to read, include some shiny pictures and stuff to encourage more people to pick it up, and distribute it to as many people as possible.

If it was reduced to being online only then the readership would be mainly those who are already involved who know what's going on. With a reduced readership you couldn't really justify paying an editor, and the thing would go downhill drastically.

I'm not saying that the current campus is perfect (nor is it terrible), but the idea still has a large amount of merit.

Cy_Revenant

People wouldn't read campus if it wasn't left lieing around campus to pick up and thumb through during lunch.

IMO \o/

legendal

Cy_Revenant wrote: »

People wouldn't read campus if it wasn't left lieing around campus to pick up and thumb through during lunch.

IMO \o/

Exactly. Putting it online only is a terrible idea.

Nanaki

How is paying an editor currently justified, and what is he/she paid for the 9 months work?

apollo25

the problem that Campus faces is the same that every newspaper or magazine always faces in attracting readers. Either you like it or you don't.

One big problem is that Campus seems, intentionally or not, to be mostly targeted towards a certain group of students, those being journalism students and those heavily involve in a club/soc. If your not one of those, there is little about Campus that appeals to the general reader becides a passing interest. I still think having it printed and available to all is the right thing, but make it more relevent for all students.

as for the comment that started all this, what was the big problem? IU'm a DCU student and I'm gay and I wasn't offended in the slightest. Any sane or resonable person would have seen that Campus wasn't trying to push some anti gay agenda. Fair enough there may have been people that took offence, but I haven't met any.

g5fd6ow0hseima

apollo25 wrote: »

Either you like it or you don't.

Hmm, Ive yet to meet someone who likes it

apollo25 wrote: »

One big problem is that Campus seems, intentionally or not, to be mostly targeted towards a certain group of students, those being journalism students and those heavily involve in a club/soc.

Im sure its intentional, full of in jokes, zomg and lol on every second page etc...

heavily involved in a club / soc? You mean style soc / dramasoc?

apollo25 wrote: »

Any sane or resonable person would have seen that Campus wasn't trying to push some anti gay agenda.

I doubt even Boy George would have taken offense to that! I dont see how anyone honestly could.... Perhaps people are very easily offended these days? Or someone just wanted to kick up a fuss over some absolute ****e which didnt warrant the attention in the first place

apollo25

Lisa Zealous Kidney wrote: »

heavily involved in a club / soc? You mean style soc / dramasoc?

well if someone in airsoft or surf n sail (first two that popped into my head, no critisism please) was a good writer and wrote something good, it would go in. its just that Style and Drama naturally attracts creative people, therefore you have a large number of comms and journalism student who would be more likely to write for Campus.