I was expecting to hear from you about this, believe it or not. And you didn't disappoint.

In response:
1) While I agree that most people get upset and are overly critical of articles about them, this isn't my first time around the block. I've been the subject of some decent media attention over the last year, and I've never once gotten upset at the way it was written.

2) The pro-SJSU slant is not in the writing itself, but in the omission of facts and tacit approval of the Professor's actions both past and present. Not everyone who knows the real story fully agrees with me, but if you look into the details of the situation [http://www.kyle-brady.com/2009/06/10/how-i-won-a-copyfight/] you can maybe better understand where I'm coming from.

3) I wouldn't have had an issue if it was just the article. But it was the sum of the parts: omitted facts and potentially biased reporting, a picture that makes me look deformed, and a nonsensical caption that ran underneath it. One of these mistakes would have been acceptable. All of them together is too much of a coincidence for an issue where I've become “the bad guy” in parts of the SJSU Administration. Conspiracy? Maybe not, but something doesn't feel right.

4) I'd *hope* that the paper was editorially independent. And while SJSU's may be most of the time (or all of the time, depending on if you count this or not), I know there are documented cases at other universities (including SCU, the private school I was at before) where the school leans on the paper to either not print a story or report a certain way – and they do it.

Does that clarify any? I'm not on a witchhunt *just* because they made me look like an egotistical troublemaker, but also because journalistic independence is something that I don't take lightly.

Whether or not I'm correct will be shown over the next few days… we'll see what happens.

–Kyle

A vast majority of people who have an article written about them have an entirely different view than 99.9% of the rest of the world regarding the perception of the article. This is the case here.

The article is fairly even-handed. It's easy to see where parts were cut by editors. Copyediting is the mortal enemy of journalism, yet it is the hand that feeds the print publication. Space is limited. Stories are unlimited. Journalists craft the story, and copyeditors make it fit. When key information goes missing or transitions are nonsensical, it's often the fault of a line editor or an overzealous copyeditor.

I read the article a few times to try to find some pro-SJSU slant. Here's how I read it:

Kyle does homework -> Kyle posts solution on blog -> Professor gets angry, threatens to fail for integrity issues -> Kyle raises hell, goes to judicial affairs -> Kyle wins appeal -> Professor changes argument from integrity to copyright -> No solution reached yet.

No pro-SJSU slant. That's nonsense. Journalists on student publications get this crap from both sides: one side says, “You're pro-school because student fees fund you,” while the other side says, “You need to be more pro-school because student fees fund you.” It's a ridiculous circle of attacks/claims when the students are doing their jobs, often for no or nearly no compensation.

You have to realize that the student publication is editorially independent of the university. At least it should be. Regardless of where the funds come from, almost every student newspaper has complete control over their editorial content. If they don't, they need to rewrite their constitution and demand it.