I refer to Elizabeth Lovinger's letter to The Campus Observer, dated March 5.

Lovinger accused TCO of "publishing hearsay about a student's death and including rumors about his medication." According to her, these actions were "both incredibly tasteless."

She went on to charge that such "disrespect shown to the deceased student and his friends by publishing a gossip article is entirely inexcusable."

What perplexes me is the amount of anger channeled through her letter in response to the contents of the original article published by TCO on March 4.

In that article, TCO quotes the testimony of two students, Christopher Aldo and MD. Rafayet Ullah. One said that the deceased had been "making noise in the kitchen," then fainted. The other provided the deceased's name and said he was on medication.

These statements gave the impression that TCO was actively trying to mine valuable information from residents of PGPR, to piece together an idea of what might have happened in those fateful hours, especially since campus security predictably remained tight-lipped.

TCO, being an unofficial student publication, faces many difficulties when trying to get access to official channels for comment or information. They have little choice but to go to the grassroots, and speak to the man in the street - in this case, students and residents.

While some, like Lovinger here, might argue that this amounts to collecting unverified hearsay for "gossip articles," I feel that TCO sufficiently maintained their journalistic integrity throughout it all.

Firstly, their sources readily identified themselves.

This means that their sources, to a certain degree at least, are ready to stand by the integrity of their own statements. It is not as if TCO reported that "a certain student who refused to give his name said that..."

I think TCO knows better than to sink to that level.

Secondly, in no way did TCO indulge in wild speculation or worse, pry into the private details of the deceased's life. I am hard-pressed to find "the kind of information that should have been reserved for family, close friends, and the necessary authorities" in the March 4 article, as Lovinger had so eloquently phrased it.

There is a need to keep a distance when a death is involved, yes. There is a need to respect the wishes of the family and friends of the deceased.

But this does not mean TCO should simply roll over and not even try to find out more about a shocking event that happened right on our doorstep.

Lovinger expressed hope that "a student publication would have the decency and tact to write a proper news article."

I think TCO has already done so.

She goes on to question if "telling the entire student community... is even necessary."

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. As a student of journalism herself, she should know better.

Eisen Teo
4th year History major
FASS