As a daily reader of the Collegian, my favorite section of the paper is the Opinion section, where I usually find a refreshing look on current events.
When I flipped to the Opinion section today, however, I was dismayed by the title of a piece called â€œWhat would Sarah Palin do? Part one.â€ Dismay turned to disgust as I realized the article was exactly what I had anticipated: a whole column filled with jabs at Sarah Palin.
Although I do not necessarily support Sarah Palin, it sickens me to see such childish name-calling posing as journalism. Whatever the intent of the article was, I found it neither clever, enlightening, nor comical. Instead the piece was hateful, spiteful and intellectually void.
To discuss Palinâ€™s political ideology is one thing, but in this piece, there is no presentation of facts but merely a hypothetical situation, which appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of left-wing anti-Palin pundits.
The piece is well-rounded, including insults about everything from her daughter having a child to being a contestant on â€œDancing with the Stars,â€ but my question is: Who cares? Why go to so much effort to trash talk a specific individual if for no other reason than the author possesses no deep insights into the issue presented at all, but must instead rely on filling his article with condescension palpable enough to gag you.
And gag I did, a natural reflex triggered by this partisan hate speech. I only ask that â€œPart oneâ€ is also the last installment of the WWSPD column, and that the â€œtri-weeklyâ€ promise goes unfulfilled. This column is undeserving of the page space shared with valid insights usually found in the opinion section, and the readers of this paper should not be subjected to the mindless ramblings of WWSPD, which only serves to leave a bad taste in your mouth, not for Sarah Palin, but for the journalist that produced it.
sophomore English majo