The long awaited pronouncement from the only person in recent MV history at least to have experienced both in their full rigor and glory.
First of all, I would like to say that this comparison, ultimately, is about as meaningful and worthwhile as comparing the proverbial apples to oranges. The two publications serve two purposes, and while overlapping in many areas, are still distinct, and have different goals, objectives, and methods. As a reult, the group of people that comprise the staff of each one are more than slightly different in an overall sense.
Of course, speaking of people, my comments are meant to be constructive comparisons of the two organizations. I am in NO way directing this towards the people themselves. My experience in both publications helped me to form many new and very rewarding friendships, as well as strengthen many existing ones. Some of my closest friends served on the \"worse\" publication, including certain people that have a very special place in my heart.
So, without further ado.. Journalism was the more productive, enriching, and fulfulling experience, between the two, on an overall basis.
Now I did not say JOURNALISM RULES AND YEARBOOK SUCKS!!! So all you fervent journalists, don\'t misinterpret that or draw unfounded inferences. Similary, all you faithful yearbook people, refrain from mailbombing (electronically or otherwise) or otherwise getting me, and keep both the above statements in mind.
Yearbook does not SUCK, as some overzealous journalists would have you believe. Rather, it was hobbled several ways, one of the main ones being highly incompetent and/or self-centered editorial management (not in all instances of course! - there were many bright stars and I\'d especially like ot tip my hat tot the two hard working editors-in-chief for El Valedor \'95, they were two of the best people I\'ve ever worked with and handling their responsiblity while keeping their sanity is best described as a Herculean task...), and similar traits among a few of the staff writers even.
A separated class structure between the editors and the staffers developed, with many instances of miscommunication and lack of morale which ultimately served to drag down quality. Many embarassing and glaring errors (the fault of both the school and the plant) shot what could have been a world class publication full of holes. In other words, while there were some daring and innovative bright spots, such as the unprecendented degree of digital imagery, overall, it did not break much new ground in MV yearbook tradition, and definitely won\'t snag prestegious national awards, as has been done in the past.
Mind you, the El Estoque was not without its faults either. There were the glaring errors too. However, they were noticably fewer in error, even despite the obviously greater scrutiny of yearbook material by editors versus their journalistic counterparts (owing to the fact that the latter comes out 8-10 times more frequently).
I attribute that to a greater spirit of being as a whole TEAM, not just an individual working for a corporate-type organization, and not even as a section, but as a whole, coherent staff, driving forward to produce a finished product. The editors were all highly motivated to produce a publication, rather than just to meet annoying deadlines and just get it over with, and the absence of a \"every section to itself\" mentality, plus almost no elitism on the part of editors, created a much more productive environment, where almost everyone contributed something of merit.
Quote whatever you\'d like. (not the JOURNALISM RULES AND YEARBOOK SUCKS! part)