http://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies/Stone_editorialRecent Changes of the page "The California Aggie Controversies/Stone editorial" on Davis Wiki.en-us http://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies/Stone_editorial2008-05-29 21:53:49JasonAller(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies/Stone editorial<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 4: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> disapproval of Editor in Chief Daniel Stone<span>’</span>s recent actions, which undermine </td> <td> <span>+</span> disapproval of Editor in Chief <span>["</span>Daniel Stone<span>" Daniel Stone'</span>s<span>]</span> recent actions, which undermine </td> </tr> </table> </div> http://daviswiki.org/The_California_Aggie_Controversies/Stone_editorial2008-05-27 21:30:18OscarSabino <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for The California Aggie Controversies/Stone editorial<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 1: </td> <td> Line 1: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ To whom it may concern,<br> + <br> + The editorial board of The California Aggie is writing to express its<br> + disapproval of Editor in Chief Daniel Stone’s recent actions, which undermine<br> + and override the body’s collective voice for his selfish and egotistic purposes.<br> + <br> + On Jan. 30, the board reached a consensus regarding the petition circulated to<br> + call a no-confidence vote against Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef. After some debate<br> + during the editorial board meeting, the majority of editors agreed that the<br> + chancellor should have taken more responsible actions when reaching his<br> + settlement agreement with ex-vice chancellor Celeste Rose. Stone disagreed with<br> + the board, saying he felt the university as a whole should have operated more<br> + responsibly. However, the decisions of the board are made by consensus and the<br> + rest of the editors held the chancellor primarily responsible. This opinion was<br> + stated clearly in the original version of the editorial.<br> + <br> + After turning in the editorial with our collective opinion, Stone impermissibly<br> + made changes to the file at 7:30 p.m. on Jan. 30 when none of the other editors<br> + were present. This is made evident by examining the time when the file was last<br> + modified (a screenshot is attached to this letter) and also comparing the final<br> + version of the editorial to the unedited versions. Furthermore, an employee<br> + verified that Stone called at 9 p.m. requesting the layout staff to re-place the<br> + editorial on the opinion page — a procedure that is only executed when changes<br> + have been made to a story.<br> + <br> + Instead of holding the chancellor responsible, Stone added the phrase<br> + “university-wide” to direct blame at the entire university. He also added the<br> + word “greatly” in front of “improved” in the sentence that originally read,<br> + “Vanderhoef is a reputable official and the campus has improved under his<br> + leadership,” amplifying the board’s original opinion.<br> + <br> + Before discussing the editorial, Stone expressed worry about “burning bridges”<br> + with the chancellor. He also mentioned to several editors that his father was<br> + angry at him because he would probably not receive a letter of recommendation<br> + from the chancellor because of The Aggie’s coverage. Our interpretation is that<br> + Stone underhandedly made these changes out of his own self-interest, clearly<br> + overstepping his boundaries.<br> + <br> + When questioned about the changes, Stone feigned concern over the matter and<br> + told Managing Editor Melissa Taddei that he had opened the editorial at 7:30<br> + p.m. without making changes. He also told Taddei that he had concurrently opened<br> + both the aforementioned editorial and the second editorial that ran on the same<br> + day, but by viewing his recent documents (screenshot attached), it is evidential<br> + that he never opened the second editorial. Furthermore, Stone asked other<br> + editors when they left the office on that particular day of production in an<br> + attempt to find other suspects he could pin the accusation on after Taddei had<br> + already informed him that she and he were the last editors in the newsroom that<br> + evening.<br> + <br> + In conclusion, Stone knew his actions were wrong since he attempted to cover<br> + them up with lies; his attempt to trace more suspects exemplifies his<br> + selfishness and manipulative tactics. This misconduct marks a culmination of<br> + concerns expressed among editors regarding Stone’s micromanagement, self-vanity<br> + and, ultimately, his abuse of power.<br> + <br> + The editorial board is formally requesting that Stone run the version of the<br> + editorial on which the members of the editorial board had reached consensus and<br> + accompany it with an apology to his staff and readers for his conduct.<br> + Additionally, if Stone is unwilling to comply, the editorial board will approach<br> + the Campus Media Board to seek his formal punishment with the attached evidence<br> + and complaints.<br> + <br> + Signed,<br> + <br> + Melissa B. Taddei, Managing Editor<br> + Brian Chen, Campus Editor<br> + Vanessa Stumpf, City Editor<br> + Stephanie Hammon, Sports Editor<br> + Rachael R. Bogert, Arts and Entertainment Editor<br> + Peter Hamilton, Science and Technology Editor<br> + Matt Jojola, Photography Editor<br> + Amy Zimmerman, Copy Chief<br> + Jeff Katz, Features Editor</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div>