Almost the entire masthead staff of The Daily Orange sat in the balcony of the Maxwell Auditorium on a cold December night in 1991 as Editor in Chief Jodi Lamagna told the Student Government Association that enough was enough.

Recounting years of threats and attempts by SGA members to assert control over The D.O. as a referendum-funded student group, Lamagna said, ‘I have heard SGA condemn The Daily Orange for running controversial material. Yet how else could your student newspaper truly serve your interests, and those guaranteed by the First Amendment?’

Then, she told SGA that The D.O. would no longer need its money.  The paper was going fully financially independent.  The staff marched out together and ran back to the office to put out a special edition of the newspaper.

It was quite a moment to savor, but one that was years in the making.  On the Syracuse University campus, The D.O. had severed ties with the university administration almost two decades before my classmates or I got to campus. 

Our relationship with SGA was tense, as it should be between a newspaper and a ‘governmental’ body.  But that tension was also accompanied by a contract.  The arrangement with SGA involved a biannual student referendum which funneled the equivalent of a $7 per student subscription fee though SGA and into The D.O.  In December 1991, 78 percent of those voting supported the fee – a higher voting return than the SGA president. 

The arrangement came with some caveats: The D.O. budget was on file in the SGA office just like other student groups; The D.O. had to sign a contract with SGA; and we had to report to SGA via a consulting board.

There were frequent, subtle and overt attempts to influence the paper.   In my years in the D.O. newsroom, more than one reporter described how special interest groups or factions within SGA tried to strong-arm more favorable coverage. 

We were running stories about SGA members’ faltering attendance at meetings, failure to meet quorum and personality disputes between SGA members; how certain politically-charged groups packed the assembly to get bigger allocations; stories about campaign violations or procedural hang-ups, election improprieties and outright chicanery with SGA funds – not to mention the editorial page critiques. 

In 1991, we had an ambitious Board of Directors and an aggressive newsroom and editorial page. Our action followed years of discussions and groundwork laid by the staffs ahead of us led by Sue Cornelius and then Heather Crooks, and those ahead of them. 

A business decision facilitated the move for a freer press. Our business staff had a visionary streak as well, and supported our decision.  I remember a meeting with Lamagna, Erin Neff, managing editor, Dick Manuel, business manager, Lloyd Lathrop, the advertising director and his assistant, to hash out our financial options.

Manuel and Lathrop looked at the books and found a way.  We also cashed in some CDs to float some expenses.  It would have been easy for the front office to encourage us to save the money for a year or two and postpone the decision to give the money back. After all, what do a bunch of 20 and 21-year-olds know about business? 

Fiscally, maybe that would have been wise. But our business staff understood our goals and values and stood behind us. They recognized the importance of independence.

Printing consumed the bulk of the paper’s nearly $800,000 budget. It certainly was not our salaries of $120 a week.  Our contract with Manlius Printers was ending. We were the printer’s biggest contract but they were nickel and diming us.  There were frequent over-charges and some charges we could never quite figure out.  Logistically, it could take up to a half-hour to drive to Manlius to deliver the galleys, even at 3 or 4 a.m. (This was before we had email and desktop design.) In the snow, the trip could be even longer.

We looked at a couple of printers. We drove down to Oil City, near where the Carousel Mall is today, toured the Scotsman Press and met with the staff.  There was some salesmanship involved in their pitch, but we felt as though we were walking into open arms.  They assured us The D.O. was going to be their top priority. Their facilities could also do faster, cleaner printing with color capabilities, which was a big deal then.  

Along with the emotional and professional security they offered, there was also the financial benefit.  The deal shaved about $80,000 from the printing costs, just the amount we needed.

Without finding the money in the budget, our plans would not have been able to materialize.  We could sit at 744 Ostrom Ave. waxing nostalgia about First Amendment values and freedom of the press, but even as impressionable 19, 20 and 21-year-olds, we recognized the financial implications of a daily newspaper.

Our front office that year had ambitious plans for raising revenues, too. An ill-fated magazine ended up being more of a drain than a cash cow. But I respect the efforts and ideas, even if the paper bought a photo magnifier that was already technologically obsolete. 

In the special edition published December 10, 1991, the paper’s editorial declared: ‘Now, Syracuse University students will be further ensured their right to a free student press.’

‘Student interests are not being served when elected officials within the student government use The Daily Orange’s referendum status in an attempt to manipulate and control the content of the newspaper.’

The announcement made headlines in The Post-Standard, The Herald Journal, USA Today and Editor & Publisher.  Beyond that, it provided a valuable moment and a level of editorial security and independence that most of us would never experience again in our professional lives.

Roy S. Gutterman was news editor and a member of The Daily Orange’s Board of Directors in 1991. He is an associate professor of communications law and journalism and director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. 

Published on February 20, 2011 at 12:00 pm