As Editor-in-Chief of The Oat, Sidwell’s premier satirical publication, I consider myself uniquely qualified to present an honest, multifaceted critique of Horizon, in no way skewed by The Oat’s history of blatant Horizon bashing. Given that we at The Oat have published a great deal of egregious exposés and partisan think-pieces painting Horizon as a dictatorial, whistleblower newspaper, thinking of more to criticize took little effort. I will not rehash the fine journalism The Oat has already done, though if any reader is interested, please email [email protected] for some of our best anti-Horizon work.

Horizon’s primary issue is its tendency to bore. To my knowledge, no one ever reads Horizon cover-to-cover –– many have tried, but they usually fail to make it past the word “Horizon.” Those unfortunate few who do read further are confronted by impassive journalism, egotistical freshman staff writers and a disappointing lack of Oxford commas. There is no pizzazz, no style –– I’d suggest adding a style section, but I fear it would be lost in Horizon’s already interminable sections (which, again, no one reads). I advise taking inspiration from The Oat: whenever I feel that The Oat lacks flair, I add a reference to a pop-culture icon as striking as Rihanna’s Super Bowl performance, or yet another Oxford comma.

Beyond mere boredom, Horizon ventures into the ultimate journalistic hellscape: stale news. Are we going to address that its current events articles present facts that are weeks behind the news cycle? No? Then I will point out that the Love Notes section of the most recent issue, in a cruel twist of fate, came out weeks after Valentine’s Day. As Horizon’s most Oat-like section, Love Notes was clearly Horizon’s best, but even Love Notes was plagued by regrettable timing. To give credit where credit is due, however, I commend this year’s editors for enhancing a usually excruciating reading experience with crosswords and vaguely engaging article topics. The bar for engaging articles was on the ground to begin with, but these editors have managed to raise reader interest to a — still fairly low — level I had thought impossible.

This brief praise has made me extremely uncomfortable, so I will return to criticism. I denounce Horizon’s long legacy of hypocrisy. Despite claiming to be an independent, fact-based newspaper, they ignore the glaring influence of the Sidwell administration on their content. When was the last time Horizon published an article truly critical of the administration, even when the occasion called for it? I certainly fail to recall such an article, possibly because I have been unable to read a full issue since the time I chugged a large double macchiato in freshman year. A recent Oat article I definitely didn’t write went so far as to say that Horizon is an “admin-backed propaganda machine,” a claim with undeniable merit.

I must understand Horizon’s loyalty, however. Mr. Lee, The Oat’s faculty adviser, demands unwavering support of his twisted schemes. In this struggle, the Oat and Horizon staff are united.

This is not the only thing that unites the two publications: Horizon’s own Editor-in-Chief Maddie Mohamadi once said, verbatim, “I am The Oat’s #1 fan.” Actually, she said: “Yo soy la #1 fan del Oat,” because we were in Spanish class, but the point stands. She and the entire Horizon staff have long provided The Oat with easily satirized content, for which we owe them thanks. The Oat would not have grown so powerful without Horizon, and we will never forget the way the Horizon staff has helped us with incredibly easy and hilarious jokes to make at their expense.