Shooting the messenger

The LaSallian invites scrutiny with every story it publishes. As student journalists, we understand that our work is not above criticism. It is in this spirit that we duly acknowledge the Council of Student Organizations’ (CSO) response to the banner story of our March issue. 

With the Lasallian Enrichment Alternative Program (LEAP) 2025 fast approaching, the statement opens the door to public discourse. However, CSO leveled serious accusations against the publication. In their words, the article was riddled with “inaccurate details” that neglected to tell “CSO’s side of the story.” Yet, amid this verbal volley, they offered no evidence to back up their claims—no misquote identified, no data disproven, and no passage flagged for inaccuracy.

If CSO’s goal is to clarify the truth, then let us do just that.

Contrary to the “freedom wall posts” cited in the statement, the article did not speculate on the miscellaneous tuition fees. It only covered the financial operations tied to LEAP, including LEAP 2023’s misappropriated funds and LEAP 2024’s delayed vendor dues. These details were supported by interview transcripts, multiple corroborating sources, and requests for comment from all involved parties.

If CSO believed our report was “undermining confidentiality,” they should raise this concern to their partners. Our sources knew their statements were on the record and still agreed to publish.

We also never implied that CSO has full control over the financial processes. In fact, we dedicated an entire section explaining how these transactions pass through the Finance and Accounting Office, the Information and Technology Services Office, and the Office of Student Leadership Involvement, Formation, and Empowerment (SLIFE). If anything, the article highlighted how the problem is bigger than CSO.

As for the suggestion that the article was “misleading,” we acknowledge that no report can capture every facet of the story. Still, this is a curious claim. The bulk of the information came from the vendors who worked with CSO, as well as SLIFE Director James Laxa, whose office is named as CSO’s “faculty adviser.” If these parties were misrepresented, we welcome clarification. Which quotes were altered? What details were taken out of context?

Instead of engaging with these questions, the statement focused on more nebulous concerns. Notably, it suggests that the article casts doubt on CSO’s “values and operational standards.” However, none of the comments regarding their conduct came from The LaSallian. They came from the vendors who endured months of uncertainty, chasing payments that never arrived on time. Their voices deserved to be heard in the article.

CSO further asserted that the issues from LEAP 2024 have been “thoroughly addressed and resolved.” While it’s good that action was taken, this does not erase the story’s relevance. Journalistic inquiry does not stop at resolution. It extends to understanding why these problems emerged, how they were handled, and what can be done to prevent them in the future. 

This is why we labeled the article as a developing story. Since the beginning of Term 3, we have been gathering information for its second part. We want to release this follow-up because we recognize that responsible journalism does not stop at a single publication, especially when there are larger systems involved. Even if all the issues with LEAP have been addressed, those outcomes still deserve scrutiny to ensure that accountability remains a constant, rather than just a crisis response.

CSO’s statement may be the most public confrontation The LaSallian has had to deal with, but it is not the first attempt to suppress our outputs. In February, we were contacted to take down a photo because it became a viral meme. At the start of the academic year, we were greeted with a request to delete a campus situationer because it may potentially affect a fast fashion brand’s publicity. Most recently, the University administration cautioned the publication to be “mindful” when reporting about political flyers on campus.

These incidents have escalated in stakes, but they all go back to a recurring issue we identified in our 64th anniversary editorial: the fundamental misunderstanding of a journalist’s role. Even when we publish mere reportage of events, our posts are seen as threats to privacy, branding, and political neutrality.

In reality, The LaSallian does not exist to protect reputations or bend to convenient narratives. We also do not report stories for the sake of confrontation; we report them to serve the public as the bastion of issue-oriented critical thinking. If our work incites discomfort, it is often the byproduct of the truth, especially when accountability is overdue. 

Ethical journalism, after all, is not about deflection or damage control. It is committed to the truth and fair representation.

But in this age of disinformation, we understand why people would be skeptical of journalists. The LaSallian has never claimed to be infallible. Recently, we owned up to the errors in our reportage on the Pulso ng Lasalyano Bill, just as we’ve corrected other inaccuracies through public errata and internal reforms. Transparency has always been part of our response, and it will remain so moving forward.

Despite these editorial standards, we cannot control how our audience interprets our outputs. They may disagree with our stories, as that is the nature of a free press. But it is our hope that they, too, look past discomfort and engage with us critically and responsibly.

That begins with redirecting the conversation to the facts and systems at play. This is what our LEAP article set out to investigate, and this is the kind of journalism we will continue to pursue. All we ask from our critics is constructive communication.

If we want to build a community that is truly, as CSO themselves put it, “always for the passion of service,” then that service must include accountability—not just from the media, but from those in power. Because when we point our frustrations only at the press, we do not solve anything. We only allow problems to go unchecked until everyone pays the price.