If the Daily had nothing to print on Wednesday, the choice could have been made to save some trees rather than to print the nth extract of the infamous Starr report.

Referring to the First Amendment in this case is frankly ludicrous.

The editor should consider informing the ISU community about all the other news that has been obscured by incessant, voyeuristic chattering about the report.

By the same token, Tara Deering’s defense of Chad Calek’s column fails to explain to us why we should pay to see his rantings in print.

Ms. Deering seems to forget that as an editor she exercises choice over the news fit to print.

One would hope that upsetting part of the community or presenting a ‘distinguishable point of view’ are not the only criteria she uses.

The issue here is not censure, but rather writing stuff worth reading, something the Daily seems to be unable to do.

Silvia Secchi

Graduate student

Economics