One thing I ask people to keep in mind is that I am not the only person responsible for what is published at UBC Student Media. It seems that there are enough people running another type of smear against UBC Student Media.

Candidates are public figures running public campaigns, and should be able to face an opposition on their own. And everyone operates under some ideology… as to the criticism we’ve posted, refer to the write-up (not mine) on Monegro’s platform, and the many videos we’ve posted.

I am not sure that the eyewitness is against ‘several dozens’ of other people, as you suggest. There is not such indication in the report from the Electoral Committee. This has nothing to do with global warming. May the 3 paragraph report of the Elections Committee be taken as Final Word of God in this issue, so we can all be happy again!?

-cc

There’s room to be critical without resorting to slander. What you published wasn’t criticism. Criticism and being critical involves looking at hard facts, looking at things like platform, and critiquing those by pointing out both strengths and weaknesses. It has nothing to do with advocating for a certain ideology, and everything to do with reporting on the truth. If you have a problem with the Elections committee, perhaps you should do something to reform it. But so far, we have the word of one person against that of several dozens who didn’t witness anything sketchy take place.

Let’s just get this clear. Critical thought=/=slander. You can do one without doing the other. I’d say that reporting someone’s name before facts were clear is slanderous and involves no critical thinking whatsoever. I think at some point, we should stop being skeptical and accept fact. Otherwise, we’d all still be in the realm of denying global warming because we all thought that scientists were out to get us ;)

I find it is quite interesting that nobody has a critical take on the Elections Committee statement. And therefore, it must be a 'smear' campaign. Poor innocent politicians were just being nice and following regulations when evil students with undefined 'questionable biases' tried to smear them and hurt their upright campaign. Bad students, now should be punished by the authority of the AMS. And, if you ever say anything critical of anyone, you must be a slandering smear campaigner, since the narrow, self-serving, 'logic' of the status quo student media does not allow for anything more sophisticated. The papal infallibility of the Elections Committee is not up for any questioning. Beware that any critical thinking can be construed as evil-intentioned, questionable (without detail as to why), libelous, slant & smear. Some people need more detail to be convinced, but ain't necessarily so for the pro-Sauderist student media. Thanks for coming after us, though, we're flattered.

They do nothing but smear and waste the elections committee’s time, and candidates should be cautious when using the EC’s time which could be used for more important things like genuine complaints and engaging the electorate.