Every time The Journal reaches out to Natasha Andrade, she said she has “a little bit of a heart attack.”
The Arts and Science Undergraduate Society (ASUS) president isn’t opposed to interviews, but said previous experiences with media have made her more cautious.
“I’m worried about my reputation. I’m worried about [ASUS’] reputation,” Andrade said in an interview with The Journal.
This concern isn’t unique to ASUS.
The Journal contacted the presidents of all seven faculty societies on Aug. 24, requesting an initial response by Aug. 27 and offering flexibility to schedule interviews over the following week.
Of the seven faculty societies contacted by The Journal, ASUS President, Computing Students’ Association President Mirwaaj Afzal, and Concurrent Education Students’ Association President Neha Rawal participated in interviews. Engineering Society President Stephie Leitch provided written responses.
Physical Health Education and Kinesiology Student Association President Olivia Solly declined to participate. Commerce Society President Amber Graham and Health Sciences President Noor Khan responded but weren’t available for interviews before publication.
Past experiences shape media practices
Andrade said ASUS has informal practices governing how staff and volunteers interact with media.
Executive members, which includes the president, vice-presidents, the general manager, and certain orientation leaders are permitted to speak to the media. Other volunteers may receive permission to speak on behalf of ASUS.
For some specific circumstances, ASUS generally prefers communication over email. Andrade said the approach stems from previous experiences in which ASUS felt its comments were misquoted or taken out of context, leaving representatives feeling inaccurately portrayed and under pressure following coverage.
Andrade pointed to The Journal’s September 2025 coverage of Mea Pregnancy Support Services’ participation in the ASUS Sidewalk Sale. The story reported concerns from students who questioned the organization’s presence at the event and called for changes to ASUS’s vendor-review process.
READ MORE: Anti-abortion organization draws criticism at ASUS Sidewalk Sale
“I definitely think that as executives, we want to ensure that our students are being accurately represented and that things are being shared in the media,” she said.
Andrade also raised a more personal concern: student representatives are young, and comments made while holding a campus position can stay publicly associated with them long after they graduate.
EngSoc cited similar concerns.
Under their current media policies, members are not permitted to do media interviews. Executives can respond to media requests, although they only provide written statements.
In a statement to The Journal, EngSoc President Stephie Leitch said the Society’s approach followed repeated negative experiences with media. She distinguished between what she described as honest errors when verbal interviews were translated into written stories, and separate instances of intentional mistakes or omissions. Leitch also mentioned pressure to accommodate media deadlines.
“We no longer felt confident in the accuracy of our replies to media requests,” Leitch said.
Leitch stressed the concerns weren’t specific to The Journal.
Media trust goes both ways
John Miller, a professor emeritus of journalism at Toronto Metropolitan University, and former senior editor at the Toronto Star, said prepared statements and interviews serve different purposes.
Written responses give organizations greater control over the information they release, he said, while conversations allow reporters to pursue information that emerges from an answer.
“If people are doing prepared statements, they’re selecting the information they want to give out,” Miller said in an interview with The Journal.
He said that since reporters have the ability to ask follow-up questions in an interview, the difference is apparent in how sources sound. Prepared statements read more formally, while interviews capture natural language and tone.
“I’m all for pulling back the veil on how journalists operate,” Miller said. “We try to get things right, and we’re duty bound to get things right.”
Miller also distinguished the difference between unhappiness with coverage and actual inaccuracy. Where elected representatives hold positions of public trust, he said journalists can legitimately ask questions they believe their readers have an interest in seeing answered.
“You’re in a position of public trust. And if you don’t talk to us, who will?”
Other societies remain open
The Computing Students’ Association President Mirwaaj Afzal said his society has no formal media policy and isn’t opposed to interviews.
If approached by media, Afzal said executives would discuss the subject beforehand with more preparation for sensitive topics.
“You’re [reporters] just doing your job, and everybody wants to make sure they’re doing theirs right as well.”
Following his interview, he said he planned to ask the Society’s internal affairs director to explore developing a media policy.
The Concurrent Education Students’ Association (CESA) President Neha Rawal similarly said her Society doesn’t stop members from speaking to media. She said a written statement would make sense when CESA wants to make a collective point.
“I feel like I do have some sort of responsibility to speak on things, and I’m hoping that being elected, people do have trust in me to speak on these things,” Rawal said.
Like Andrade, Rawal described reluctance about how spoken comments can appear in writing.
“Sometimes it can be scary, because you never know how people can articulate what you say,” she said.
Reporting without the interview
Michael McBean, editor-in-chief of The Charlatan, Carleton University’s independent student newspaper, said Carleton’s main student government is willing to participate in interviews, but university administrators often respond through statements.
“It’s better to get something, rather than nothing,” McBean said in an interview with The Journal.
When The Charlatan receives a statement instead of an interview, McBean said reporters may continue asking for an interview or send follow-up questions. If the source declines further comment, the publication proceeds with the information available.
McBean said the publication also tells readers when it requested an interview or additional information that a source declined to provide.
“We try to be as transparent as we can about this,” he said.
When The Charlatan requests an interview and receives a statement, McBean said the publication may tell readers an interview was declined.
“Statements are still acceptable,” he said. “Ideally, interviews.”
McBean said he believes elected representatives should make themselves available for interviews because student media may be among the only organizations consistently keeping campus government accountable.
“No one really owes us anything”
Aidan Raynor, the 2025–26 editor-in-chief of Concordia University’s student newspaper The Concordian, separated what journalists want from sources and what they’re entitled to receive.
“I can’t really insist on anything,” he said in an interview with The Journal. “Can I encourage? Yeah, 100 per cent.”
At The Concordian, Raynor said interviews with university officials were uncommon. But he said repeated scripted communication can also affect the relationship between an institution and the people it represents.
“When you sound like a robot, people kind of treat you like a robot,” Raynor said.
For elected student representatives, Raynor said he believes there’s a stronger argument for openness and direct engagement with student media.
He said that “if you want your policies to be well communicated, communicate them like a human.”
Tags
faculty societies, Interview, Media, Policy, Statement
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to eic@queensjournal.ca.
Racheal Reddy
This article plainly articulates that the information and questions journalists ask you are simply part of the job. It makes it clear that the fear that’s been instilled in many students across student government comes from a general misunderstanding of what it means to trust a journalist to properly convey what you’ve shared with them. Rather than deliberately trying to misrepresent you to get story views, journalists get the information that they believe their readers want to know and share the stories that are of interest to their readers. Definitely worth the read, and great work towards mending the bond between student government and the Journal!