There’s this old clich√É© I’ve grown rather fond of during my four years at Pipe Dream: media is the watchdog of government. And like so many clich√É©s, it exists because it’s true (or at least should be).

Humor me, if you will, and imagine a newspaper run by a politician.

Naturally, all of the reporting would be flawless because the politician in charge would obviously have access to information on the government he or she (for argument’s sake, let’s just say he) helps to run. Sure, there is always the slight chance that the reporting would be biased to make the politician look good, and only a minute possibility that only one side of the story would make it out to the public, but come on, what kind of politician would sink to such corruption? They’re trustworthy people, after all.

And of course there’s no need to worry that only certain stories are making it out to the public. Why would a politician not want you to know about everything being done by the government or everything going on in the country? Sure, the politician probably won’t look good in every story, but is that really a reason for him to withhold that news from his constituents? Of course not, don’t be foolish!

After all, it’s not like governments have ever used media outlets as a form of social and ideological control over the people they are governing. Well, except of course for that tiny 70-year period when the Soviet Union existed ‘ or that time Nazi Germany did it ‘ and communist China ‘ or even that brief period in the late 1700s when President Adams censored U.S. newspapers. But that would never happen now ‘ we can trust our government.

So then, theoretically, a paper run by ‘ oh, I don’t know ‘ Dick Cheney, would of course offer you the kind of unbiased, sound journalistic material that you would never be able to find at a paper run purely by journalists. Cheney’s paper would be dripping with the kind of journalistic integrity that rags like The New York Times lack.

After all, what’s a better watchdog for the government than that very same government itself? We’ve all seen how well government checks and balances on itself work out. That’s why there’s so little corruption in Washington these days.

So, I think what we can all surmise from this little discussion on government and media is that what BU needs is a newspaper run by major players in our Student Association.

Just think about it: a paper run by SA members would always give you the full truth about how they’re spending your money and is obviously far more qualified to take an unbiased stand on campus issues than some rag run by newspaper nerds, like Pipe Dream.

What we need is for some of the louder, more active members of the SA to start their own paper and end this drought of journalistic integrity at BU. Maybe the kind of people who sit on important committees, like the Rules Committee and the Research and Planning Committee. Those kind of people could never have their own agendas which they could, theoretically, of course, shamelessly use their newspaper to push.

And since this new paper will undoubtedly be the least biased, least corrupt of all campus media, the SA members running it could call it something like the Liberated Press or the Free Journal.

Ah, if only this were more than just a little fantasy in my head. Oh wait ‘