Students Union publication 'Campus'

mehfesto · 12-11-2009 10:18AM

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 · 12-11-2009 10:37AM

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 · 12-11-2009 12:28PM

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 · 12-11-2009 02:46PM

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 · 13-11-2009 01:17AM

Overreaction to some tripe which should be ignored altogether?

carlowboy · 16-11-2009 12:32AM

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 · 16-11-2009 04:22PM

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 · 16-11-2009 06:53PM

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,

16-11-2009 07:02PM

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 · 16-11-2009 07:39PM

who cares, all these college publications are horse dung anyway

Shea O'Meara · 16-11-2009 08:21PM

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':

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

Brought on by:

To shovel muck. We need to muck the stable before it gets too thick.
To do a dirty job.
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 · 16-11-2009 08:35PM

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 · 16-11-2009 08:37PM

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 · 17-11-2009 01:42AM

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 · 17-11-2009 02:54PM

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

IMO \o/

legendal · 18-11-2009 01:15AM

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 · 18-11-2009 05:08AM

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

apollo25 · 18-11-2009 11:30AM

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 · 18-11-2009 11:37AM

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 · 18-11-2009 11:47AM

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.

Shea O'Meara · 18-11-2009 04:32PM

apollo25 wrote: »

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.

The comment wasn't aimed at me and I didn't take it as a slight on all gay folk. It's up to the individual whether they take offense or not, be they gay or otherwise. Nobody has suggested the SU had an anti-gay agenda, that's nonsense.
However, you need standards. Especially when you're supposed to be representing students, not trying to insult them. You can print any slur and argue it's okay in a certain light. It's a done deal as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully they don't make a habit of it.

public_enemy · 18-11-2009 06:32PM

This whole discussion seems weird and overblown. It's almost as though it exists purely to provide a source for the alleged "wave of controversy" mentioned on the front page of this month's The College View... Editor made a mistake and apologised, surely that's the end of it?

Even if it's gone downhill a little this year, I'll still take Campus over The College View any day, it doesn't hurt my brain quite as much to read it. Silly thread is silly.

gizmo · 18-11-2009 07:14PM

Lisa Zealous Kidney wrote: »

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

Not exactly true, if a Club or Society wanted their stuff in Campus all they had to do was make sure it was sent to the editor on time. I suspect it's more that other groups simply aren't particularly bothered with it and Drama/Style being slightly more motivated in informing people what's going on.

Anyway yes, the "controversy" is over so can we please move on?

phantom_lord · 18-11-2009 08:07PM

lol, is whoever is looking after it atm looking for a job at the daily express or something? what a silly sensationalist low content front page story that was today. can we expect some madeleine and diana front page headlines in the future?

19-11-2009 04:04AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

can we expect some madeleine and diana front page headlines in the future?

I find that comment offensive.

Green Hand Guy · 19-11-2009 11:20AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I find that comment offensive.

Ooh! Could this be next week's scandal?

phantom_lord · 19-11-2009 04:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I find that comment offensive.

why? i take it from your previous post that you're not involved with the campus paper? you don't write for express do u?

manlad · 19-11-2009 10:01PM

cant believe this arguement is ongoing. Some people are easily offended. If ya don't like would your reading then don't read the paper. The campus magazine isn't much of a hit anyway most ppl just flick through it. While some people go through it with a fine comb looking for something to raise an arguement about. All these easily offended people need to grow a pair.

robby^5 · 20-11-2009 12:06PM

manlad wrote: »

All these easily offended people need to grow a pair.

I find that comment offensive.

manlad · 20-11-2009 06:34PM

robby^5 wrote: »

I find that comment offensive.

In what way do you find it offensive?people like you are the problem

Students Union publication 'Campus'

Comments