Prometheus
Dublin Core
Title
Prometheus
Subject
Student newspapers and periodicals
Description
A review of the small Mary Washington College newspaper, Prometheus, by Michael Mello.
Creator
Mello, Michael A.
Source
Mello, Michael A. "Prometheus" Mary Washington College Bullet, April 18, 1978, Michael A. Mello Papers, 1957 - 2008, Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1978-04-18
Rights
The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.
Format
2 JPG
300 dpi
Language
English
Coverage
Fredericksburg, VA
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
As I write these words, the fate of PROMETHEUS is still undetermined. The bi- weekly publication plans to print one more issue before the end of this academic year, but for my purposes their success or failure in this endeavor is irrelevant; even if PROMETHEUS is unable to print one last time, even if it does not publish in future years, PROMETHEUS has left its mark on MWC. My aim here is two- fold: 1) to briefly discuss what PROMETHEUS was to me and 2) to gauge the publications' accomplishments and judge its impact on the campus.
PROMETHEUS never detailed its goals or objectives in print; the closest it came to making explicit its editorial policy was a brief note in the first issue. PROMETHEUS said its "purpose is to provide a forum for discussion of various topics of interest." But PROMETHEUS to some extent patterned itself after the national magazine SKEPTIC; the latter described itself as, a "a forum for contemporary history . . . Our intention is not to persuade you to believe in any one point of view. What we strive for is a complete spectrum of opinion. From the right. From the left. From the center. From Presidential candidates. And Marxist economists. From those in power. And those still seeking it. We truly believe that only this kind of open debate in- print can illuminate the issues that will be crucial to the destiny of our country over decades to come." This, to me, was the ultimate goal of PROMETHEUS: to serve as a vehicle for debate; a framework for the expression of diverse student views on the issues that affect their lives.
The staff of PROMETHEUS put a tremendous amount of effort into each issue of their publication; schoolwork was neglected, friendships often became strained, and other relationships suffered. Was it worth it? In the final analysis, what PROMETHEUS accomplished?
First, PROMETHEUS provided an outlet for student views an outlet for student which THE BULLET had in recent years ignored: day student complaints, homosexuality, student- professor affairs,student power (or the absence of it), the competency of dorm mothers, and civil disobedience. PROMETHEUS was also the first to publish an eyewitness account (and criticism) of an Honor trial. This year's BULLET staff probably would have dealt with these issues anyway, but the fact remains the PROMETHEUS did it first.
Secondly, PROMETHEUS served as a watch- dog for the BULLET, forcing the latter to be ever alert and poised lest the ragtag "underground" press scoop the official MWC newspaper. Although the two papers ostensibly operated within seperate contexts (one being a full- fledged newspaper, the other a forum for the expression of opinions), a subtle sense of competition always existed between them. And this sense of competition kept each publication on it toes; one tends to be more careful when he knows that someone else is double- checking his work and looking over his shoulder for flaws in his facts or logic. The end result of this was two- fold: a better PROMETHEUS and a better BULLET.
Thirdly, the creation-- (literally) from scratch-- of a new publication was an invaluable experience for the founders and later staff of PROMETHEUS. None of the founders had had any extensive previous exposure to all the myriad aspects of journalism at the beginning , but circumstances forced them to learn writing, editing, layout, advertising, and distribution quickly. It was a hell of an experience. And for a while it was even fun.
PROMETHEUS failed, of course, in its primary stated object: it never became a forum for debate. For a debate must must have at least two opposing views and PROMETHEUS never did. In its seven months existence, PROMETHEUS only received one letter and one article in response to anything it ever printed: the letter was in reply to a cartoon ostensibly published "in fun" and the article was written by a member of the PROMETHEUS editorial board. Those who took interest in the issues raised in the "underground" paper chose to reply in the BULLET rather than PROMETHEUS, and for a good reason: if you have something to say, why say it in a publication which was not able to legally distribute on campus, and prints only 500 copies per issue when you say it in the "legitimate" paper which prints 2,800 copies per issue? Thus, ironically, PROMETHEUS itself never became one. But the "other paper" served a far more important function: it was a stimulus for debate. PROMETHEUS raised questions , which made people think, and in an academic community, that is a considerable contribution.
MAM
PROMETHEUS never detailed its goals or objectives in print; the closest it came to making explicit its editorial policy was a brief note in the first issue. PROMETHEUS said its "purpose is to provide a forum for discussion of various topics of interest." But PROMETHEUS to some extent patterned itself after the national magazine SKEPTIC; the latter described itself as, a "a forum for contemporary history . . . Our intention is not to persuade you to believe in any one point of view. What we strive for is a complete spectrum of opinion. From the right. From the left. From the center. From Presidential candidates. And Marxist economists. From those in power. And those still seeking it. We truly believe that only this kind of open debate in- print can illuminate the issues that will be crucial to the destiny of our country over decades to come." This, to me, was the ultimate goal of PROMETHEUS: to serve as a vehicle for debate; a framework for the expression of diverse student views on the issues that affect their lives.
The staff of PROMETHEUS put a tremendous amount of effort into each issue of their publication; schoolwork was neglected, friendships often became strained, and other relationships suffered. Was it worth it? In the final analysis, what PROMETHEUS accomplished?
First, PROMETHEUS provided an outlet for student views an outlet for student which THE BULLET had in recent years ignored: day student complaints, homosexuality, student- professor affairs,student power (or the absence of it), the competency of dorm mothers, and civil disobedience. PROMETHEUS was also the first to publish an eyewitness account (and criticism) of an Honor trial. This year's BULLET staff probably would have dealt with these issues anyway, but the fact remains the PROMETHEUS did it first.
Secondly, PROMETHEUS served as a watch- dog for the BULLET, forcing the latter to be ever alert and poised lest the ragtag "underground" press scoop the official MWC newspaper. Although the two papers ostensibly operated within seperate contexts (one being a full- fledged newspaper, the other a forum for the expression of opinions), a subtle sense of competition always existed between them. And this sense of competition kept each publication on it toes; one tends to be more careful when he knows that someone else is double- checking his work and looking over his shoulder for flaws in his facts or logic. The end result of this was two- fold: a better PROMETHEUS and a better BULLET.
Thirdly, the creation-- (literally) from scratch-- of a new publication was an invaluable experience for the founders and later staff of PROMETHEUS. None of the founders had had any extensive previous exposure to all the myriad aspects of journalism at the beginning , but circumstances forced them to learn writing, editing, layout, advertising, and distribution quickly. It was a hell of an experience. And for a while it was even fun.
PROMETHEUS failed, of course, in its primary stated object: it never became a forum for debate. For a debate must must have at least two opposing views and PROMETHEUS never did. In its seven months existence, PROMETHEUS only received one letter and one article in response to anything it ever printed: the letter was in reply to a cartoon ostensibly published "in fun" and the article was written by a member of the PROMETHEUS editorial board. Those who took interest in the issues raised in the "underground" paper chose to reply in the BULLET rather than PROMETHEUS, and for a good reason: if you have something to say, why say it in a publication which was not able to legally distribute on campus, and prints only 500 copies per issue when you say it in the "legitimate" paper which prints 2,800 copies per issue? Thus, ironically, PROMETHEUS itself never became one. But the "other paper" served a far more important function: it was a stimulus for debate. PROMETHEUS raised questions , which made people think, and in an academic community, that is a considerable contribution.
MAM
Original Format
Newspaper
Contributor of the Digital Item
Wilson, Christany
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Williams, Megan
Files
Citation
Mello, Michael A., “Prometheus,” HIST299, accessed July 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/62.