The Leading Princeton Publication of Conservative Thought

On The Daily Princetonian’s News Biases

The Princeton Progressive, Princeton’s leftist political publication, has gone dormant. Why? Because The Daily Princetonian has stolen its mantle. Consider the Prince’s treatment of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)-aligned Referendum No. 3. According to the Prince’s reporting, a contested interpretation of a USG constitutional rule is a matter of fact – a decision that conveniences Referendum supporters. To the Prince, an internationally-celebrated Palestinian human rights activist is a “political analyst,” because of his opposition to BDS. And, a statistic about antisemitism documented by the University is a mere “claim” peddled by Referendum opponents. Just as a reporter could never list each lie rattled off by a politician, I can’t list every slanted fact and lie reported by the Prince on this topic. 

Perhaps you think I’m a crank who can’t swallow objective reporting. You would be wrong. The Prince’s news section is led by public opponents of Israel, BDS supporters, and members of activist groups supporting Referendum No. 3. One of its Managing Editors, Head News Editor, and an Associate News Editor are each signatories of a 2021 anti-Zionist and pro-BDS petition, and the staff writer covering the USG elections results is a member of the pro-Referendum No. 3 activist group. In its coverage of Referendum No. 3, the Prince news team saw fit to recognize my previous involvement in the pro-Israel community, but not to do the same for their own pro-BDS, pro-Referendum No. 3 affiliations. So much for “work[ing] each day to earn the trust of the community it serves.” It’s no wonder that the Prince produces such slanted reporting: its staff is more student-activist than student-journalist. 

The Tory brands itself as a right-wing publication and the Prog defines itself as progressive. Their news pieces fall under the banners of “conservative” and “left,” respectively. It’s about time the Prince owns up to its own identity: a duplicitous, agenda-driven paper. 

 

The above is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.

Comments

comments