Last time we checked, we don't have police badges - nor do our paychecks distribute through the East Lansing Police Department. Therefore, it's not our job to share our information received through reporting with the police.

But that's what the ELPD's newest initiative would have us, and other media outlets, take part in. Following the April 2-3 disturbances, the ELPD, along with other area law-enforcement agencies, has requested that local media sources become embedded with the departments in the future.

Various reasons have been given for such an action, including that the media could share its notes, footage and pictures of future disturbances, if they occur. Police officials also say it could help "quell questions about department procedures."

Although the suggestion could have been made in good taste, we feel that becoming embedded with police would put us in a position that would directly go against The State News' responsibility as a newspaper - to be an unbiased source of information.

Now, it's been said, and it's probably true, that a truly unbiased media source cannot exist. We are, after all, the students' voice. But throughout the aftermath of the April 2-3 disturbances, we have consistently given the police departments involved a variety of opportunities to share their perspective.

In fact, before this year's melee, we were biased against the students at MSU, hoping our peers wouldn't act in the same irresponsible fashion as in 2003. But after sending numerous reporters out into the field this year, and through our subsequent research involving student behavior and the police response, everything we have found has been negative.

We realize that the police want their voices to be heard as well, but it would be completely inappropriate and unfair to our readership for us to join hands and walk through streets of tear gas with the officers.

The April 2-3 disturbances was a wild night. Our reporters were bombarded with tear gas and even hurt, along with everybody else. It would have been nice to have some police protection, which is likely what this initiative would guarantee us. But it's more important to us, as journalists, to provide an accurate, unbiased account of the events rather than become an insider on either side.

We have a right to gather information that could be potentially incriminating and not be obligated to share it with our new best friends - the police.

Hopefully the law-enforcement agencies that constructed this "deal" had only the public's best interest in mind - not their own personal gain.

Either way, our answer is, "No, thank you."