In an age where – to quote Rupert Murdoch – “scarcely a day goes by without some claim that new technologies are fast writing newsprint’s obituary,” the future of student newspapers, and newspapers in general, is hardly secure.
Critics blame the loss of the “rivers of gold”, or the classified advertising revenue streams, as one of the major reasons for the downwards spiral newspapers are in — not to mention the rate at which audiences are flocking to the internet and abandoning the traditional media. In response to the rising popularity of the internet, news agencies are fast migrating to the web but are having trouble making these online articles pay – you pay for a newspaper, why not online news too?
And on top of these concerns, student newspapers have long been battling with limited funding from university councils, and the recent Voluntary Student Unionism legislation did nothing to help their cause. One might even suggest the migration to the web could be a welcome change for student newspapers — it’s a cheaper medium than print, as student newspapers don’t have cover charges or anywhere near the advertising rates larger papers do. Oh and it saves more trees. Melbourne University’s Farrago already publishes both online and in print, and Monash University’s Lot’s Wife also has an online presence. Rabelais is yet to follow. But considering recent editions, one could even question if it is worth bothering with student newspapers at all in the near future.
“Following the tradition of all student newspapers, we must condemn all those fabulous celebrities for glamorising drugs and consequently making us want to take them”. This was the introduction of an article titled “Drugs” in Rabelais’s first edition for 2008. The article goes on to give explanations of “the mainstream drugs and their telltale signs”, including the alleged benefits of ppeed (“An excellent night out that only feels like it lasted for ten minutes”), advice on prescription drugs, Dextroamphetamine, Valium, Ritalin, and Xanax (“All work perfectly fine as long as you do not actually need to take them (if you are prescribed them, sell?)”), and that ecstasy is “easily obtained for around $30” and cannabis is also “cheap and easy to get” — just in case you were in the market.
News? Opinion? Investigative journalism? In 1995 Rabelais came under federal scrutiny when the then four editors published an article titled, “The Art of Shoplifting”. Although intended as a “satirical triumph over capitalism”, the court banned the article as material that “promotes, incites, and instructs in matters of crime or violence”. The four editors each faced up to six years in jail, and a $72,000 fine, but all charges were eventually dropped after a lengthy appeal process. The article provided a step-by-step guide to shoplifting and included advice such as: “It is always a good idea to carry a bag although you should never stash anything in it — if security/sales staff are suss on you the first place that they’ll check is your bag.” And once again one could ask is this news? Opinion? Or even journalism? The court even went as far to say it “lacked literary or artistic merit”.
When Rabelais was founded in 1967, the same year La Trobe University opened, Michel Lawrence, the first editor of the paper, chose the name because “it suggested bawd, which he liked”, according to Don Watson, another early editor of the paper. A cursory glance at the Concise Oxford English Dictionary definition of bawd, “a woman in charge of a brothel”, almost seems appropriate, but perhaps "bawdy", which is described as “humorously indecent talk or writing”, fits even better.
But then I guess it depends on who’s reading the paper. The Retail Traders Association certainly didn’t find “The Art of Shoplifting” funny. In the first editorial of Rabelais, on July 24, 1967, Michel Lawrence wrote: “Rabelais has to show that La Trobe is a thinking, active university… It is hoped that our articles will be refreshing, origional (sic) and different. We hope that the paper will eventually become more sophisticated in both content and production.”
Written and published in his own handwriting, Lawrence’s editorial appeared alongside the many photos of students holding teddy bears and flowers, articles on university chaplains, poor catering facilities, and people being “lulled into drowsy unawareness” from the library heating. But the now yellowed pages of “The Mouse That Roared!!” serve as a reminder of what student newspapers should be about.
Ten years later, the paper had grown to include articles on surrounding suburbs, such as: “The controversial Banksia-Bell Street connection proposals”, it had more political content, such as: “Why does the ALP always seem so ineffectual?”, and in all Rabelais provided around 40 pages of news and opinion to La Trobe’s students.
But fast forward another 30-odd years, to the shoplifting article, or 40, to the piece on drugs, and I wonder: is this what Michel Lawrence had in mind when he hoped for “sophisticated” content? Or if this is how he intended to prove La Trobe is a “thinking, active university”?
This year, however, Rabelais has taken a different approach to the magazine-style, themed editions of the past years, and now, thanks to the new editor, Leticia Quintana, is published regularly and in a newspaper format it's headlines including “LTU Bookshop Sells to Private Interstate Business”, “Iranian Leaders Visits La Trobe” and “Court Gives Textbook Tax Breaks”. The paper is a lot closer to the original 1967 pages.
While some La Trobe students are in “shock” and “cannot believe Rabelais is actually worth reading”, others feel that the paper has turned into a “collection of stale campus news with little of the fun content and light relief that has characterised Rab for so long”. But if articles praising party drugs, instructing people how to shop lift and pondering why more females don’t like anal sex, are considered “fun” and a worthy excuse for having a student newspaper, I don’t see how they are worth saving.
Surely there are better ways to spend the funds (albeit very little) allocated to these publications, if this is what students actually want to read. And while the future of newspapers seems up in the air, personally, I love print and I’m optimistic about its future. It’s just the content of “so-called” newspapers — whether they be student-run or not — that worries me.
Ashley Fritsch is a final-year Bachelor of Journalism student at La Trobe University.
Email this article
Tags: Ashley Fritsch, Farrago, journalism, La Trobe University, Lot's Wife, Rabelais, student journalism
12 Comments
Ashley well done. A wonderful bit of tabloid style rhetoric there. A first for Upstart I think but nonetheless it will look good in the clippings file for that Herald-Sun application.
I particularly liked the way that you began with the assertion that “recent editions” of Rabelais were a good indication of its poor editorial standards but then proceeded to give us examples from 2008 and 1995. Pure Bolt, jolly good show that.
And the examples chosen were juicy ones weren’t they? Drugs, shoplifting and you were even able to fit in an anal sex reference. Piers’ jowls would have been wobbling with glee.
That said I have to salute the fact that you did give current Rabelais editor, Leticia Quintana, some credit for the style of the publication since she has been in charge. I am sure that uncredited sources expressing their “shock” at its quality and saying that they “cannot believe Rabelais is actually worth reading” will make her feel that all those hours she puts into Rabelais aren’t wasted.
I’ll cut the crap now. This year I have had pieces published in Rabelais and on Upstart. I think both have their place in La Trobe life and a relationship should be developed between them. The idea that it needs to be one or the other is ridiculous.
I think all students, especially those in the journalism and media courses, should be encouraged to pitch stories in both forums. It’s all about learning the craft and getting published, people. Embrace all the opportunities presented.
Erdem I understand that a piece was run recently in Rabelais that was critical of Upstart. I will admit that I have not read it but regardless of its content I would have hoped that you would be aware that as the founding student editor you have a responsibility to set a standard for Upstart that others will follow. Publishing hatchet jobs like this is not a good start.
Nice article. I enjoyed it. You would think that Uni Newspapers, if properly distributed, should always find a readership. Particularly for on-campus students. The demographic is generally between 18-26 year olds – so news has to be more “bawdy” I suppose. Cheers.
Hatchet job? I disagree and I am disgusted that a fellow student would refer to their peer’s work in such a way.
Well done Ash, you enthralled me with your knowledge and research. Chris must’ve been too busy thinking up witty one liners for his comment to notice that you are not condemning Rabelais.
Rabelais and Upstart “both have their place in La Trobe life and a relationship should be developed between them. The idea that it needs to be one or the other is ridiculous”. Of course it is Chris, that’s why Ashley works closely with Leticia to contribute to Rab every issue. Evidently you don’t read Rab much or you would know that.
You obviously missed the point of her article. I’ll make it clear for you: In 1967 Rab’s editor wrote “we hope that the paper will eventually become more sophisticated in both content and production.” Ashley provided us with some very interesting and yes, titillating, examples of how this didn’t happen. Until now.
“If articles praising party drugs, instructing people how to shop lift and pondering why more females don’t like anal sex, are considered “fun” and a worthy excuse for having a student newspaper, I don’t see how they are worth saving”. I agree Ashley, they’re not.
Regardless, Upstart is a forum encouraging student work, is it not? I don’t think comments about “hatchet jobs” are appropriate, nor fair.
Whilst I appreciated Kelly’s indignation at Chris’ comments I thought I’d chip in to clarify something.
It seems that sadly, it is Kelly who doesn’t read much of Rabelais. If she did, she would have observed that Ashley doesn’t “work closely” with me to “contribute to Rab every issue”.
Whilst Ashley has contributed some high quality work to the newspaper she has contributed to only two out of the six Rabelais issues released this year.
Interestingly enough, Ashley hasn’t contributed to Rabelais since Upstart was up and running.
Instead she has chosen to submit an article about the content of student papers not to a student paper, but rather ironically to an online website run by La Trobe lecturers.
Fair enough Ashley.
My apologies if I misinterpreted your intent.
Thanks Chris, Joel, Kelly and Leticia for your comments.
I agree with you, Chris, that all students should be encouraged to submit pieces to both Rabelais and Upstart, and that it shouldn’t have to be one or the other.
As Kelly and Leticia have pointed out, I have had two pieces published in Rabelais this year and I will continue to pitch and write stories for both mediums, when I have the time.
I apologise if it wasn’t clear in my article but I do think Leticia is doing a fantastic job as the current editor of Rabelais and in turning the newspaper around this year. In no way did I mean that students should not submit articles to Rabelais or have to choose between one or the other.
Hi Ashley, I really enjoyed your article but also found it hard to track your argument.
Regardless, the truth is that students do have to pitch to one publication or another, not both.
This is because while Upstart has repeatedly voiced its support of Rabelais and Chris Scanlon has gone so far as to offer to help get Rabelais online (much appreciated), there is in effect no ‘collaboration’ on the table.
There is no collaborative model for dealing with content. Rabelais has a limited talent pool consisting solely of La Trobe students.
Upstart appear to be appealing to “emerging journalists” at large, but all of their content seems to be streaming from la trobe student assignments.
The reality of this is severe, and to be blunt, quality student journalism at a journalism university is being poached by its lecturers, and there needs to be some acknowledgment of that.
The Upstart concept is wonderful, i think its a great avenue for emerging talent to get exposure. But of course that this “emerging talent” is predominantly La Trobian talent is naturally problematic to La Trobe’s student paper.
My point is that content is not being pitched to both, its being pitched to Upstart, who as an online publication would get the copy out before any Rabelais deadline anyway.
Regards
“Content is not being pitched to both, its being pitched to Upstart, who as an online publication would get the copy out before any Rabelais deadline anyway”. Rania, I disagree.
The two publications are entirely different. Upstart’s readership is, or at least has the potential to be, much broader than a La Trobe student paper. Thus, students and emerging journalists alike can pitch work on a much broader range of topics.
On the other hand, Rabelais is a university newspaper interested only in matters concerning the campus and surrounds, or students generally.
The two publications are very different and both very good. I can’t see why we’re arguing about whether they can co-exist or which is better. This time would be better spent pitching and writing articles for both.
Look, I can understand why lecturers want to have an online forum and why students want to contribute to it. And, in reality, rewarding students who don’t start sentence with “look” and “and” can only be a good thing for journalism, right? The word “poaching” is probably a bit strong though.
However, there’s reason for Rabelais to possibly feel threatened. Student contributors only have a limited time for extra-curricular activities. Contributing to Upstart is fine, of course, and laudable (its probably worth noting here that the reason there have been so many comments is that Ashley’s article is very good and clearly engaging students) but this is never going to be a publication that gives students editing and layout experience as Rabelais does. Rabelais is an opportunity for more than passive article contribution. It offers real creative and directional control – as we have seen this year. Comparisons in Upstart’s favour are always going to be skewed by its more advantageous position in terms of funding: its monopolistic control; its editors who are professional journalists – in effect funded by the university through lecturer’s salaries – and no costs like a print publication – which Ashley did mention.
Obviously, I’m no journalist so Upstart’s not for me (except to wade into blog-debate-madness like this). But I have contributed to Rabelais from time to time, and it has been a useful learning experience that faculty-based exercises could never replace…even if I still like to start sentences with “and” or “but”.
Ashley writes “Rabelais is yet to follow. But considering recent editions, one could even question if it is worth bothering with student newspapers at all in the near future.”
Kelly comments later “Chris must’ve been too busy thinking up witty one liners for his comment to notice that you are not condemning Rabelais.”
Kelly, the above IS a condemnation. You must have been too busy being witty to notice. *cough*.
As for the rest of it … apart from suggesting that print is a far more venerable medium than online journoblogging, I will retire to the far corner.
Oh … and my words weren’t particularly pithy. Nor were most of the comments above.
Or virtually any of the comments made on other posts.
Perhaps the editorbots could address this assumption. Insert smiley emoticon here.
Thanks Ashley. Very interesting piece. Good research and I am very glad Don Watson remembers why I chose Rabelais as the name- I wasn’t sure myself!
I also thought that a certain professor at the time bore a striking resemblance to the great man. But mainly it was just a bit of undergraduate humour at work. Bawdy probably sums it up very well. Nonetheless, as there were only about 500 of us at the time, Rabelais was always a pretty communal effort and it probably worked at that level. Frankly, I am just happy to see that it’s still being published and it’s still called Rabelais. Very glad to hear the current editor is doing such a good job. Of course there is a place for student journalism and student newspapers. As the unis get larger and larger there needs to be a heart and a core to the place. And that’s something that student journalism can impact.
After university, I worked as a journalist at The Australian before going into advertising. I am old fashioned enough to think that newspapers should work at the local level and if we don’t actually have real journalists who can write we will just end up with the kind of pap which passes for journalism on the commercial television channels. Personally, I think print’s days are numbered. But the essential skills of thinking, writing and putting words of more than one syllable together in a cohesive, logical and interesting way are in real danger of being swept away in our never-ending, open-ended, multi-faceted, multi-channeled mash-up that passes for journalism today.
By the way I really enjoy Upstart as well. And clearly that’s where the news is coming from now. It’s instant. And it’s accessible. But it doesn’t matter what the channel, please keep writing for people who think.
Thanks, Michel.