The second of September marked a surprising addition to a rather uninspiring repertoire of start-of-term publications by the Daily Illini. The article focuses on a small section of a large FOIA documents surrounding the role of the skunk, BJ White, with regards to funds spent to renovate and furnish the University of ILL’s presidential house.
Given the copious amounts of clout, scandal, Worsty Awards, spending, etc. at UI, it is only natural that the general public, students, and concerned alumni would question the necessity of such expenses and (especially if BJ White is involved) any ethics issues related. Based upon the story, there seems little, if anything, objectionable or illegal; certainly nothing to compare to the clout scandal.
Enter the Serial Obfuscator: Tom Hardy.
The electronic equivalent of barking and frothing at the mouth, Tom Hardy posted a rabid harangue on the comment board shortly after 1p.m. the same day, turning it into a mad house, because his bosses reputations may well be in the dog house, all over the costs of the penthouse, while it was the White house, who belongs in the Big House.
Accusing the DI of exploiting a “Gotcha” moment, and launching into several name-calling tirades such as “amateurish” “half-baked” and in violation of fair, objective journalism the post is rather extraordinary since there was little to castigate in the DI’s originally article. Nowhere in that article appears any conclusion or insinuation of wrongdoing warranting the accusation of a “Gotcha” moment that Hardy insulates in his Palpatinian out lashing. Indeed, the DI reported the renovations, attached the price to the rug, and includes the relevant documents. In the second and third paragraphs, the DI identifies the go-between, and the source of the funding. Nowhere in either does the publication insinuate or identify any improprieties-a hallmark nonetheless characteristic of the White regime.
The second to last paragraph merely is a statement of record, concerning White’s fate regarding the admission scandal. Nothing contained therein reported is false-White did resign. He was replaced by Ikenberry and ultimately succeeded by appointment of Michael Hogan. Or would Hardy dare to challenge these facts? Hmmm?
Finally a promise to follow up on the story. If, if we can bear to take Hardy’s word, there are 1200 more pages worth, this hardly seems unrealistic. Needless to say, hardly anything worthy of the boorishly delivered monikers of “half-baked” or unprincipled.
Hardy’s tirade, in which he attempts to take the moral high ground with claims about “friendly’ facts and a lack of secrets, becomes even more incredible when one bears in mind that, in addition to being called out by the IPA for "thumbing its collective nose" at the FOIA request regarding the cost of presidential searches, he and the university currently face a push for a state ruling by the News-Gazette for failing to adhere to the recommendations of the IL Public Access Counselor. Nor shall we forget that this man previously (in an equally brazenly hypocritical, snide, albeit less hot-headed manner) chastised the DI’s editorial picture for calling into question BJ White’s actions during the admission scandal. The context was the revelation that White (which he testified to) used his position on behalf of a member of his own family, which Hardy bizarrely omitted, in his letter to the DI, ever happened. Hardy's description of White handing himself over to "private" life also causes some scratches to the head (for us behind the ears), given that White is now a golden-parachute faculty member, teaching of all things ethics(!). Given Hardy’s brazen need to completely whitewash White of anything, no one would be surprised if tomorrow Hardy started to insist White’s urine was, in fact, wine (if only “half-baked.”)
Perhaps this was a non-story, and we shall wait to see if it was. But Hardy’s expose of bureaucratic indignation over some fiscal transparency and accountability has replaced it. Regardless of the journalistic merit of White’s unsurprising largess (a topic that has been, and will likely continue to be analyzed, but as Tolkien would say, does not enter into this tail). Tom Hardy IS now the story. We know the DI well. We are forced to read it everyday (this Hound in particular!) This can be a chore. As anyone who reads us knows we have been adamant since the start of the fall term concerning the DI’s failure to update or retract a false rape allegation that it has previously reported. And we know full well, ’amateurish” ’half-baked’ and in violation of “every principle of fair, objective expository journalism “ are accurate, well labeled appellations of the Daily Illini’s journalist apparatus on most days.
But not today. And we challenge Hardy to show specifically where it is otherwise.
Posted by Hound No. 9
***Update 9-2-2010 5:31 P.M.***
The Daily Illini has posted an update regarding the rationale for the publication of this story. Though not by name, it is certainly a rebuke of Hardy's accusations. The Daily Illini's explanation echoes No. 9's post and our own defense of the publication.
Posted by Alpha Hound
