Varying amounts of insider

It probably all started in mid-December. Our current Opinion Editor, Elisha Sauers, sent out a preliminary call for columnists and specifically invited officers of both the College Democrats and College Republicans. Oddly enough, the College Democrats weren't interested. The College Republicans, however, did send someone to answer the call.\nThey sent their head man, CR President Andrew Lauck.\nThus began the era of sticky arguments. As it was designed, Lauck and a few others were to be the 'conservative voices' on the Op/Ed page, thus eliminating one of the biggest complaints we get -- that the IDS has a liberal bias.\nLiberal Media -- 1, Conservative Pundits -- 0\nThis brought up another problem. Lauck, as CR president, would have been the main source for IDS reporters seeking comment. As a columnist, Lauck would be prohibited from speaking as a source.\nPenalty: tripping the reporters. Liberal Media -- 0, Conservative Pundits -- 0\nA little more than a week later, the management got wind of something else -- that Lauck would be advising a potential ticket's entry into the IU Student Association elections.\nThis, apparently, was too much for the IDS to handle from one columnist; he had his hands in too many student arenas. Conflicts of interest reared their ugly heads. In theory, releasing Lauck was the right move. If nothing else, it ensures the integrity of the information flow between student media and student government.\nLiberal Media -- 1, Conservative Pundits -- 0\nOnce word got out about Lauck's dismissal, a minor sort of hell broke loose. Conservative supporters started complaining that Lauck was being dismissed for his beliefs. On the surface, that might appear true, despite what we in the newsroom view as a simple conflict of interest. In the time I've been at the IDS, however, this sort of contractual catastrophe only seems to happen to the conservative-leaning columnists.\nLiberal Media -- 1, Conservative Pundits -- 1\nBy my count, the score (as seen above) is one to one, but the score doesn't tell the story completely. Let me lay it out for you:\nEveryone has bias -- you, me, everybody. No one can get around it, and no one can easily hide it.\nThat said, please don't go run out and say "aha! They are liberals after all!" If you read the letters page on Tuesdays, the letters will tell you that we're equal opportunity offenders here at the IDS. Anti-abortion and abortion rights people each think we're in bed with the other side. I won't give names, but a substantial number of IDS staff voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 election, yet the newspaper is still perceived as more left-leaning than the lefty scissors you find in elementary schools. What makes good newspapers is that they do their best to lay bias aside and tell it how it happened. Spin goes on the Opinion page, where it belongs.\nOpinion writers have space to address any issue they see fit. The problem with the Lauck scenario is that he could possibly have used that space to advocate for the IUSA ticket he advises. That would be an unfair advantage over all the other tickets that aren't buddies with an Op/Ed writer. I'm not saying he would have done misdeeds, but the temptation would have been there.\nAnd for the record, the management did offer to compromise with him before excusing him. Also, most people conservative enough to be labeled as such tend to be heavily involved in conservative groups, thus increasing the odds for interest conflicts. You really don't have to do as much to be labeled liberal, so the danger of conflict is lessened.\nThe good news in all of this is that there is now an open slot on the Op/Ed page. \nAnyone interested?