Students Union publication 'Campus'

Shea O'Meara · 09-11-2009 04:30PM #1

Anyone see this?

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

giveliberty · 09-11-2009 05:45PM

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 · 09-11-2009 06:05PM

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 · 09-11-2009 06:07PM

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Why yes they did.

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

Dj Stiggie · 09-11-2009 06:17PM

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 · 09-11-2009 06:21PM

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 · 09-11-2009 07:18PM

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 · 09-11-2009 07:31PM

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 · 09-11-2009 07:37PM

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 · 09-11-2009 09:03PM

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 · 09-11-2009 09:18PM

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?

:| · 09-11-2009 09:36PM

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 · 09-11-2009 09:56PM

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 · 10-11-2009 12:13AM

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 · 10-11-2009 04:36PM

I see the article has been removed from the website.

:| · 10-11-2009 05:18PM

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

irish_boy90 · 10-11-2009 06:18PM

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

He scored a tranny and wrote about it in campus?

Shea O'Meara · 10-11-2009 06:43PM

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 · 10-11-2009 07:51PM

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 · 11-11-2009 12:23AM

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 · 11-11-2009 12:36AM

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 · 11-11-2009 02:02AM

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 · 11-11-2009 05:55PM

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 · 11-11-2009 06:03PM

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 · 11-11-2009 10:23PM

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 · 11-11-2009 11:15PM

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 · 12-11-2009 12:03AM

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 · 12-11-2009 12:23AM

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 · 12-11-2009 01:33AM

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 · 12-11-2009 01:54AM

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 · 12-11-2009 04:28AM

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).

Students Union publication 'Campus'

Comments