Does the Boar need a good roasting?

**Often there exists a corrosive tribalism on this campus; one criticism of a society’s organisational structure invariably becomes an attack on its individual members’ integrity, who harbour a defensive group mentality.**

My objection is simple: within the current structure, the _Boar_ has a compromised relationship with the SU. Its close geographical proximity to the Sabbs (its office is literally on their doorsteps) creates a cosy relationship that prevents meaningful accountability. Further, the SU has historically underwritten the _Boar_’s debt liabilities, granting them operational leverage e.g. ‘please don’t write that’, ‘don’t say this’.

The sum of this is to create a deferential culture that robs us of the weapons of scrutiny against a mandate-less zombie student ‘democracy’. It further entrenches a popular belief that the SU is run by an incubated, incestuous clique, detached from the student population.

I respect this paper and I’m not such a bitter outsider enviously looking in. I may never have been a Boar ‘big-dawg’ but I was a deputy comment editor and I’ve earned my right to an opinion. But it’s not just my opinion. Here are some quotes I collected from former _Boar_ Editors:

“…the _Boar_’s financial position (i.e. its debt to the Union) meant the SU had a lot of ‘soft power’ over the editorial team, and we felt under some pressure to not write negative stories about the SU. It was sometimes implied that any negative publicity about the SU could impact on their leniency over our debt. So, while we were ostensibly ‘editorially independent’, in practice this was compromised”.

“The fact that the _Boar_’s office is on the same corridor as the sabbs and senior employees doesn’t help… the editorial team get to know the SU staff quite well… nobody wants to write bad stories about their friends.”

Another former Editor told me: “We refused to be a mouthpiece for the Union and decided to remain independent. Conceptually a student newspaper should be a source of accountability for the Union (especially a Union that receives as small a mandate from students as Warwick’s does)… in the absence of that, confidence is undermined in both the paper and the Union”.

After this editor departed, they noticed a culture shift: “[the _Boar_] started backing the Union but received nothing in return. I think you should just look at some of the old front pages and compare how the paper used to be to how it is now”.

Maybe I’m over analysing this whole situation? However, once when I walked into the _Boar_ office there was a picture of Nick Swain as the screensaver on a computer. An innocent in-joke perhaps, but for me its symbolism remains.

I’ve heard endless stories from insiders reporting that, in the past, Sabbs have made personal requests for the _Boar_ not to report credible information that could damage people’s political reputations. I’m sorry, but isn’t that sometimes necessary? Time and time again the _Boar_ capitulated to these pressures and displayed a true lack of independence.

There are several solutions. Firstly the _Boar_ should have its office relocated outside the SU, anywhere but the SU. Providing SU real estate undoubtedly allows the SU to exert undue influence over editorial decisions. There was a time when the Boar was outlawed to a campus shed for being uber-critical of SUHQ. I’m not advocating a shed, but the point is that a detached office environment would psychologically create a sense of separation from the SU power structure. This would allow a more rational, less compromised journalistic thought process and the realisation that the Boar should be protecting a vision of a ‘student interest’ and certainly not that of the SU or the sabbs, who are our elected servants and must be scrutinised and provoked into action.

Ideally Warwick University would provide a student journalism fund to cover the _Boar_’s operating costs – financially amputating it from the SU and the need to source funds from unethical companies – but also simultaneously demonstrating it values highly the intrinsic good of student journalism. This would also act as a mechanism through which to attract prospective students.

Instead the _Boar_ currently operates within a mucky revolving door context, between the sabbs, the SU, University authorities and personal relationships (which are often unavoidable) but that undermine professionalism. _Boar_ editors often seem caught up in the drama of SUHQ and become blinded by their own sense of self-importance and forget their moral duty to protect students – not simply to say they produce a newspaper as a personal accolade.

The _Boar_ resiliently, but disingenuously, paints a picture of itself as a ‘neutral’ medium that is demonstrably false. It further begs the question: should a STUDENT newspaper strive so hard to achieve a false notion of pseudo BBC neutrality? Should it not instead fight, promote, criticise, analyse and hold to account our student ‘democracy’ with a preconceived vision of the ‘student interest’? If even a STUDENT newspaper can’t take a bold editorial line, what hope is there for future journalism in this country?

This isn’t a naïve idealists dream, it’s what the _Boar_ used to be and could be once more. Another former editor told me the editorial line used to be, however corny, “hold truth to power”. The _Boar_ “supported[…]occupation; was wildly in favour of kicking arms companies off campus, and using direct action to do so[…]getting a living wage for Union staff”. Most importantly “the senior editorial team[…]had a bit of a ‘fuck you’ attitude towards the sabbs; a polite request not to publish something would usually be met with a front page article rather than any chummy acquiescence”.

That is true journalistic courage and something the current Boar staff would do well to remember. I hope you prove me wrong.

_**When questioned, the SU responded with an official statment:**_

“Undoubtedly the Sabbatical Officers get on well with the team at the Boar and our close geographical proximity facilities this. However we are confident that the Editors are not afraid to write anything that could bring the Union’s reputation into disrepute – and nor should they be. The Union’s primary value is that of democracy; as such it is essential the press remains free. Finances and accounts are separate matters entirely – the newspaper’s debt position has no bearing whatsoever on its journalistic freedoms.

“Having consulted with the Sabb team we can confirm that this year we have never encountered a situation where the Union has steered the content of the newspaper in line with its own objectives.”