In the ‘real world’ of journalism, working alongside other publications is part of the job.
It’s necessary, and sometimes even infuriating, when you feel like you’re both chasing the same story. But still, we think there is great value to having multiple papers: they push each other, not only to write better but to foster different accounts of the same event. The same applies to student publications. Because after all, student publications are often seen as the training ground to ‘real world journalism’.
Even though there is no commercial pressure, and we don’t buy into the idea of some bitter rivalry between Nouse and Vision, there is still a motivating sense of competition. Having another paper also gives us a sense of identity; we know what we aren’t as well as what we are. It also offers students a wider range of writing opportunities, as a single paper would not have the range that you see between Nouse and Vision.
Whilst discussing this column, we found an old Editorial Note from a 1997 edition of Vision in which the then Editor made the case for the importance of two student papers, ten years on from Vision’s founding. He advocated the value of two papers, rallying against a belief that “in five years time (2002) there would only be one student paper.” Clearly, both of our student publications have survived and we hope that York SU won’t pull the plug now.
The fact of the matter is, both papers have stood the test of time, and have done so for a reason. One paper on its own would not give students a true experience of being involved. Just like sports, much of the purpose of journalism is derived from competition, so only having one paper is just as pointless as only having one football team with no one to play against.
Having only one paper would not save the Students’ Union money either. If you only had one paper, you would still need nearly as much equipment so the extra members could work on the paper together. Furthermore, the number of print editions would not just half, as there would still be an expectation for fairly regular editions, which would now only be published by the one paper.
Not only this, but the inevitable drop in writers caused by the merging of the two papers would impact income from membership fees. This drop is inevitable because, as the two papers became one bigger conglomerate, the ratio of members significantly involved in management and editing would plummet. An important part of being a society member is feeling involved and integral to the society. Currently, the University has two strong, close-knit writing communities, but merging the papers would compromise this and likely disillusion a number of the contributors.
It was also interesting to read in the 1997 edition that Nouse was viewed as the more satirical paper of the two, whilst Vision was just starting to move away from the traditional in-depth articles. It is clear from this that both papers have developed their style and content over the years, with each new wave of editorial teams bringing new ambitions.
By funding two papers, the Students’ Union allows for a greater range of voices to speak up. It does not make sense for any publication to publish multiple, contrasting opinions on the same issue but, by having multiple papers, York avoids the echo-chamber effect of one paper. As the 1997 Editor concluded, having two papers is something that should be celebrated.