Posts Tagged ‘Journalism Ethics’

SUNY Oswego Journalism Student Threatened with Suspension Over Email to Hockey Coaches

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on November 12, 2012 | 1 Comment »

Officials at SUNY Oswego recently threatened an international journalism student with suspension and campus banishment over emails he sent to hockey coaches while working on a class assignment.

–

The 30-second gist, according to Gawker and FIRE: Australian native Alex Myers currently studies journalism and works in the Office of Public Affairs at SUNY Oswego.  For a class assignment requiring “a feature on a public figure,” he selected the school’s hockey coach Ed Gosek.  As part of his info gathering legwork, he emailed the hockey coaches at Cornell University, Canisius College, and SUNY Cortland requesting their feedback on Gosek.

–

The email contained two faux pas– one major and factual and the other more minor and stylistic.  First, Myers identified himself as a SUNY Oswego public affairs staffer, not a student.  Second, he urged the coaches, “Be as forthcoming as you like, what you say about Mr Gosek does not have to be positive.”

–

The latter statement struck at least the Cornell coach as over the line.  As he wrote Myers, “My interactions with ed gosek have all been off ice as we are div 1.  He is one of the best guys in college hockey.  Your last line of saying your comments don’t need to be positive is offensive.”  Myers quickly apologized, claiming he simply wanted to be clear he was not out to pen a “puff piece.”

–

–

As FIRE reported, “The next evening, Myers received a hand-delivered letter from SUNY Oswego President Deborah Stanley, informing him that he was being placed on interim suspension, effective [the next night], and that he would have to vacate his dorm room by that time. The letter also banned him from all campus facilities and informed him that he may be subject to arrest if he came on campus.”

–

The charges: 1) Dishonesty re: ID’ing himself as a school employee, not a student.  As Gawker confirmed, “No question, he f*cked up there.”  2) Disruptive behavior.  FIRE: “Among the behaviors that merit this charge are ‘harassment,’ ‘intimidation,’ ‘threats,’ ‘conduct which inhibits the peace or safety of members of the college community,’ and ‘retaliation, harassment or coercion.’”

–

–

My Take: First charge, check.  Second charge, huh?  Sending an email to some coaches asking for the goods– good and bad– on a peer is harassing, threatening, coercive or inhibiting others’ peace and safety?  As FIRE contends, “Alleging that Myers’ emails could possibly have constituted any of these not only violates the First Amendment, it sends a deeply chilling message to students. How safe can student speech at SUNY Oswego possibly be if any criticisms of faculty, staff, or fellow students find their way to the wrong administrator?”

–

Fortunately, FIRE intervened, pointing out the egregiousness of the second charge and the overwrought suspension posturing.  The school lessened its final punishment, but is requiring Myers to write a piece “to share with other students in journalism classes . . . what you have learned from your experience.”

–

The essay I would write, in 25 words: Be honest with all potential sources.  Watch how you word things.  And if school officials ever come after you at least somewhat unfairly, fight back.

–

–

Read Full Post »

Emerson College Student Group Accuses Berkeley Beacon of Bias Over Unpublished Op-Ed

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , on November 9, 2012 | 1 Comment »

An interesting journalism ethics battle is being waged at Boston’s Emerson College over an unpublished op-ed.  Student members of something called Emerson Progressives and Radicals in Defense of Employees (PRIDE) claim editors of The Berkeley Beacon attempted to change the stance of an op-ed submitted to the paper so that it aligned more with their opinions.  Beacon editors deny the charge.

–

The 30-second backstory: The student group PRIDE formed last month at Emerson to “give a voice to security guards, dining hall workers, and maintenance workers at the college.”  Soon after its creation, a pair of security guards were fired for allowing an unauthorized man into a campus dorm– where he went on an attempted stealing spree.  An Emerson student and PRIDE member penned an op-ed supporting the security guards– arguing the current crew overall is underpaid, short-staffed, hastily trained, overly scrutinized, and attempting to keep everyone safe amid “murky rules.”  So, in essence, according to the op-ed draft, the recent intruder was not the guards’ fault as much as the school’s and the system it has put in place.  The student sent the op-ed to the Beacon.  It was not published.  Why?  Speaking of murky. . .

–

PRIDE members are handing out a flier accusing Beacon editors of stepping over their editorial-ethical boundaries and effectively killing the piece prior to publication.  The flier– which also features the unpublished op-ed in full– alleges, “Instead of editing for structure and grammar, most of the comments [from Beacon editors to the student writer] were blatant opinions. . . . The three editors inserted their own bias into this editorial piece, which is not the intention of the editing process for op-eds.”

–

–

In an editor’s note published yesterday acknowledging the flier and accusations, the Beacon fully disputes any “editorial improprieties.”  According to the paper’s editorial board,

–

In the Beacon’s opinion section, we are accustomed to respectfully editing the words of students who disagree with our private views and that of the Beacon’s editorial board.  The diverse opinions we publish are what make that page an arena for students and faculty to exchange ideas.  However, op-eds worth publishing must survive a process of challenge and scrutiny to ensure they hold up against opposing arguments. . . . Shaping a well-reasoned argument requires identifying holes, unfounded accusations, broad generalizations, logical inconsistencies, unidentified sources, and unattributed statistics in its construction.  Working with writers to clear up those issues strengthens their credibility and ours.  It is with the intention of improving the integrity of an op-ed that we give edits.  If a writer is unwilling to revise a piece in such a way that it meets that standard, we reserve the right not to publish it.

–

–

The larger related ethical question pertinent to student press everywhere:

–

What are the proper procedures for editing op-eds– especially ones dealing with controversial topics, written by contributors with obvious agendas or espousing viewpoints you are personally aghast at or against?

–

–

Read Full Post »

Kenyon College Newspaper Also Revokes Quote Review Option, Following Harvard Crimson Decision

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , on October 3, 2012 | Leave a Comment »

The Kenyon Collegian at Ohio’s Kenyon College is no longer allowing sources to review and request changes to their quotes in stories prior to publication.  As co-editor-in-chief Liliana Martinez tells me, the paper stopped adhering to what had apparently become accepted practice for some sources after seeing the similar review rejection policies recently adopted by The New York Times and The Harvard Crimson.

–

“This issue,” according to Martinez, “has prompted ongoing debate at Kenyon, especially between administrators, members of Student Council, and Collegian staffers.”

–

The paper ran an editorial late last week to clarify its policy switch, partially in response to a student leader’s assertion that dropping quote review was “backtracking in terms of the accountability and transparency you have with interview subjects.”

–

–

A portion of the editorial: “As more of our sources expect free rein to strike words from the record and redraft, it has become increasingly difficult for our reporters to provide perceptive coverage of this campus.  Over the course of the last year alone, sources have asked to revise their quotes to make them sound more eloquent. One source asked to add additional information to the body of a quote; another asked that a quote be taken off the record retroactively. All of the above situations violated established rules of journalistic ethics.  When interviews are given on the condition that quotes be sent back and changed after the fact, we are failing in our mission as a newspaper and effectively becoming an extension of the Office of Public Affairs.”

–

The editorial confirms the Collegian will still offer what editors call “read backs,” or quick quote run-throughs with a source over the phone or in person.  Sources can contest a factual error or a perceived misquotation, but any other style or wording changes are out.

–

The editorial’s close: “Since we announced this policy change to our staff at our fall training session, we have heard from multiple members of the campus community that they are nervous about consenting to interviews without prior review of their quotes. The truth is that we would rather go without a quote– no matter how useful– than permit sources to use our pages to mislead our readers.”

–

–

Related

Harvard Crimson Ends Policy Allowing School Officials to Review Quotes Prior to Publication

College Media Podcast #4: The Harvard Crimson Quote Review Reversal & More Gaming the News

–

–

Read Full Post »

Daily Princetonian to Stop Using Email Quotes in News Stories, Except in ‘Extraordinary Circumstances’

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , on September 18, 2012 | 1 Comment »

The Daily Princetonian will no longer publish quotes submitted by email in its news stories, editor-in-chief Henry Rome announced today.  The Princeton University student paper’s decision is the second major policy change involving email and college media already this semester.

–

The Princetonian shift– “the result of consultations with major national news organizations’ senior editors and reporters” this summer– is apparently a pushback against the “prevalence of email quotes” appearing in articles.  Eds. felt it had become detrimental to the Prince’s journalistic mission.

–

–

“Interviews are meant to be genuine, spontaneous conversations that allow a reporter to gain a greater understanding of a source’s perspective,” Rome writes.  “However, the use of the email interview– and its widespread presence in our news articles– has resulted in stories filled with stilted, manicured quotes that often hide any real meaning and make it extremely difficult for reporters to ask follow-up questions or build relationships with sources.”

–

Rome notes that exceptions to the no-email rule will be made in “extraordinary circumstances,” I imagine when the information is especially valuable or the source is especially far away and phone-less.  Otherwise, according to Rome, sources who only want to talk via email will be cited in stories as “declined to be interviewed.”

–

The Prince will still be allowing sources to review quotes for factual accuracy prior to publication.  That is the policy The Harvard Crimson at Harvard University recently dropped.  The Crimson is reversing its longstanding quote-approval practice to fight a culture of decreasing candor and availability among Harvard staff sources.

–

As Crimson president (editor-in-chief) Ben Samuels explains in a memo to staff: “Some of Harvard’s highest officials– including the president of the university, the provost, and the deans of the college and of the faculty of arts and sciences– have agreed to interviews with the Crimson only on the condition that their quotes not be printed without their approval.  As a result, their quotes have become less candid, less telling, and less meaningful to our coverage.  At the same time, sources have more and more frequently agreed to communicate only by email rather than in person or by phone, or have asked that their names not be used along with their comments.”

–

In a letter to readers, Samuels and managing editor Julie Zauzmer confirm the new Crimson policy restricts “reporters from agreeing to interviews on the condition of quote review without the express prior permission of the president or the managing editor.”

–

–

The Crimson decision comes amid a larger debate now brewing about “quotation-approval as a condition of access” to significant or powerful sources.  As iconic New York Times media writer David Carr writes, “Journalism in its purest form is a transaction.  But inch by inch, story by story, deal by deal, we are giving away our right to ask a simple question and expect a simple answer, one that can’t be taken back.  It may seem obvious, but it is still worth stating: The first draft of history should not be rewritten by the people who make it.”

–

Carr praises the Crimson for trying to fight this “quotation-approval” culture, noting, “Thankfully, some pushback is under way and young journalists are among those doing the pushing.”

–

–

Update, 11:30 a.m., message from Princetonian EIC Henry Rome: “I wanted to make a distinction between the policy the Crimson recently did away with– ‘quote approval’– and what we call ‘quote review.’  We are firmly against ‘quote approval’ and do not practice such a policy. When I refer to ‘quote review,’ that is a non-binding courtesy we provide to sources in limited circumstances.  If they provided factual information that they later found to be wrong (eg ‘I said five but I meant six’), that is the only instance in which we would consider replacing a quote.  If there’s a question of whether the quote was transcribed accurately, that would be addressed then as well.  This happens entirely at the discretion of the editors.  To be clear, if a source said it, a source said it.  We don’t do revisionist interviewing.”

–

–

Read Full Post »

American University Professor Attacks Student Paper for Asking About Her Mid-Class Breastfeeding

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , on September 11, 2012 | 1 Comment »

American University professor Adrienne Pine is nastily attacking The Eagle campus newspaper for its efforts to report upon a recent class session in which Pine breastfed her baby in front of students while lecturing.

–

The 30-second gist, as described by Inside Higher Ed: “[H]er baby woke with a fever on the first day of Pine’s course, ‘Sex, Gender, Culture.’  Pine couldn’t take her baby to child care because of the fever, and didn’t want to cancel class or turn it over to a teaching assistant on the first day.  So she opted to take the baby to class. . . . At one point, Pine said, her daughter became restless and– without stopping the lecture– she breastfed her.”

–

–

Eagle reporter Heather Mongilio soon after rightly began reporting on the incident.  It’s not hard to see the newsworthy angles here.  It centers on an act that is rare in a university classroom, especially involving a professor, in front of students, mid-lecture.  Students were apparently beginning to talk about it across campus.  And it has the potential to be linked to larger discussions on child care issues, classroom decorum, family-friendly workplaces, lactivism, and more general notions of gender and mother’s rights.
–

Pine responded to Mongilio’s initial email inquiry kindly enough, confirming, “I had no intention of making a political statement or shocking students.  I merely had a sick baby who I couldn’t leave at daycare on the first day of class.”  Mongilio then followed up like any good reporter with an attempt at an in-person chat, in this case grabbing Pine after one of her classes had wrapped.

–

After that chat, by her own admission, Pine grew “increasingly incensed at the entire premise of the ‘story.’”  She wrote Mongilio an email straightforwardly pleading with her, “Please do not publish this story.”  She “notified [her] colleagues and dean that we were all possibly about to be drawn into a pointless story centered around my breasts.”  And she subsequently decided to beat the Eagle to the punch.  She published a long-winded rant about the entire saga on CounterPunch.

–

–

Pine’s essay is eye-opening for the vitriol it spews toward the Eagle for, gasp, having the gall to report upon a perfectly legitimate story.  She calls out Mongilio and other editors by name, describing them directly and indirectly as naive, gossip-driven, misogynistic faux journos with no news sense and a “hounding” reporting style.  The problem?  Her descriptions of their news judgment and reporting legwork, for the most part, make them sound quite reasonable, even laudable.

–

She also says the Eagle is known for sporting “a solidly anti-woman slant.”  Her evidence: a single opinion piece published in 2010.  Sigh.  Really, Professor Pine?  A wildly inaccurate claim, backed up by a single errant commentary?  (Yes, the piece itself was awful, a powder keg that caused a monstrous blow-up at AU, but it’s been a few years and at least two editorial teams since it happened.  And, again, it is just a single piece.)

–

At one point, Eagle EIC Zach Cohen responded to Pine’s quash-this-story-please emails by stating, “Rumors about the incident are already spreading through the student body, and we owe them an explanation of what really happened.”  Her initial reaction: “[W]ould you ‘owe them an explanation’ if I menstruated in class as well?”  (Hmm.  I don’t see how this breastfeeding situation and menstruation are comparable at all in the context of what the Eagle was preparing to report.)

–

Bottom line: Forget the breastfeeding.  Pine’s angry screed is now the story.  The off-base, highly-personal, downright mean attack on competent student journalists is beneath an individual in her position.  It displays a severe lack of understanding about basic journalism tenets and the journalistic process.  And it also shows the danger of jumping the gun.  The Eagle has not even published anything on “breastfeed-gate.”  Mongilio’s story would most likely have been objective.  Heck, it might have even sided more with Pine!  But Pine feared the worst, let her righteousness overwhelm her rationality, and took to the Internet to sound off– doing far more potent damage to her professional reputation.

–

Among the reactions from AU students and the journalism community:

–

–

•I sympathize with Ms. Pine’s breastfeeding debacle, but it is beyond hypocritical that Ms. Pine would originally say she wants her name redacted from the Eagle story so as to protect her from internet searches that make her look bad when she had no problem at all identifying Eagle journalists by name. And those search results (in which she portrays the AU student as harassing her) will forever affect that student’s job prospects. Pine needs to be fired asap.

–

•Everyone knows the real villain here is the professor. Reporting on a story does not mean you disagree with the subject of the story. There was a dissent in views on whether she should breastfeed. The Eagle did what good newspapers do, it covered the controversy. Bravo eagle.

–

•Heather Mongilio: I’m going to publish my own “expose” about you. You are an excellent journalist who asked mature, hard hitting questions, and demonstrated that you will not be bullied by an angry, entitled, unprofessional feminist who thinks that students pay 52,000 dollars to watch her take care of her baby and get naked in class. This is an absurd situation that you shouldn’t have to deal with, and I really hope that you know how many people here support you.

–

•Breastfeeding as a professor of a class is very different than breastfeeding on the metro. On the metro, people can choose to look away or look at their phone if breasts make them uncomfortable. A student in a classroom cannot do that. Turning you head away from the professor during class would be very awkward. I don’t see anything wrong with public breastfeeding, but I also don’t see why Prof Pine couldn’t have just pumped some breastmilk into a bottle before class. Just sayin

–

•Since Professor Pine (Adrienne Pine) is so concerned with what people find when they google her (although she doesn’t give a care about trashing AU students by name, thus hurting their post college employments prospects in the already hard-to-find-a-job field of journalism) let’s all use her full name when ranting about her so that the rants show up in her google searches and her true selfish character is revealed.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Read Full Post »

SMU Daily Campus: “Why We Endorse Candidates”

Posted in College Media, Journalism, Journalism Ethics, Student Newspaper, Teachable Moment, tagged , , , , , , on March 27, 2010 | 1 Comment »

The endorsing of political candidates prior to elections is a journalistic tradition older than the inverted pyramid and Larry King, combined. Many college newspapers trod a similar endorsement path with student government candidates- penning editorials prior to campus elections spotlighting the contenders they feel will be the best holders of particular offices.

–

The Daily Campus at Southern Methodist University very recently published its endorsements for three student body representative positions.  In a letter to the editor written in response, an SMU student argues that such endorsing is a step too far: ”Though I would not attack the editorial board’s unbiased approach to interviewing and endorsing candidates, the fact remains that more than likely the members of the board had personal relationships with candidates or those close to the candidates which, due to human nature, affected their endorsements, whether consciously or unconsciously. This article is a humble suggestion from a student who believes in the power of a student-run news source but would hope that the Daily Campus in the future would show respect to the candidates and to the student body by advertising the candidates and the issues, not their personal opinions.”

–

–

This is a timeless ethical issue in collegemediatopia, and worthy of consideration every now and again.  The student’s concerns strike at the heart of the two main trouble spots of student newspaper endorsements: 1) In a hyper-local environment like a college campus, it is inevitable for paper staffers to have a personal relationship with student government candidates or be friends of friends (or enemies of enemies) or simply have some sort of ‘insider’ information on them.

–

2) Student journalists’ identities are often overlaid or might shift at a moment’s notice- from student to classmate to housemate to athlete to student organization board member to Greek lifer to student employee in the office of communications- much more than a professional journo.  This shifting presents numerous potential conflict of interest issues (real or perceived) when deciding on candidates’ strengths and weaknesses.

–

The Daily Campus editorial board admirably responded to the concerned students’ respectful letter.  In an editorial headlined simply “Why We Endorse Candidates,” one editor noted, “It is our job to consider the positions and leadership abilities of the candidates and make a fair and objective decision. We hope in this way to give SMU students a context and point of view to consider as they decide whom to vote for.”

–

In my opinion, the main reasons these endorsements can and should continue:

–

1) The student paper is entrusted as the voice of the students, delivering information or commentary on every issue imaginable.  Student government does not get a pass.  As the Daily Campus editorial states, “The function of the editorial board is to issue opinions on behalf of the newspaper.  Not issuing an opinion in student body elections . . . would be a waste of the board.”

–

2) Student government candidates have the potential to exert tremendous influence on campus.  Apart from star athletes and popular profs, they are probably the most well-known people on campus.  They are, in effect, public figures.  We are not talking about endorsements of candidates for student drama club recording secretary or something similarly off the radar.

–

3) Student editors regularly wrestle with major ethical issues, making a conflict of interest recusal decision easy enough.

–

4) An endorsement is a recommendation, not a command- and it is not (necessarily) a criticism of the competition.

–

5) The paper has an opinion section.  If you do not agree with a particular set of endorsements, write in and make your own.  This is a point the Daily Campus piece powerfully drives home.

Read Full Post »

Update: KU Student Senate Finance Committee Votes to Cut Daily Kansan Funding

Posted in College Media, Journalism, Journalism Ethics, Student Newspaper, tagged , , , , , , on March 15, 2010 | 2 Comments »

The Student Senate Finance Committee at Kansas University has fired the first real shot amid the increasingly heated war of words regarding funding for The Daily Kansan student newspaper.

–

As I first blogged about late last week, the Daily Kansan is facing a potential cut of $83,000 to its budget.  Why?  Because some members of the KU Student Senate, led by its president Mason Heilman (who strangely did not show up for the committee vote), want the money long allocated to the paper dropped from the campus media portion of the required student fees.  In the first official vote on the issue, the finance committee accepted the cut (totaling $1.70 per student), paving the way for a full senate vote on March 24th.

–

Click on the screenshot above to watch a relevant Lawrence Journal-World video report.

–

The possible financial cut equates to eight percent of the Kansan‘s total $1.18 million budget, and could have a dangerously debilitating domino effect.  As the newspaper itself reported, “Kansan staff couldn’t provide an exact number of expected employment losses, but said at least 20 staff members could lose their jobs. ‘If the reporters have to be cut and our content goes down, the product quality goes down and advertisers don’t advertise,’ [the Kansan business manager] said. ‘So it affects a lot of things.’”

–

A Kansan letter from the editor responding to the finance committee vote vowed to fight for the funding it believes it still deserves: “The student body has voted on and approved the student media fee. You have told Senate where you want your money to go. Before it changes the distribution of your money, Senate should put this fee back in front of the student body for another vote, else it go against the wishes of its constituency. . . . This issue is not over. It is not going away. However, we can easily lose this battle through inaction. A setback such as this should never deter us from sticking to our ideals and defending our rights as student journalists and media consumers.”

–

On the flip side, a letter to the editor from a KU graduate student urged the paper to view the potential funding cut as an opportunity, not a detriment: “Heilman’s points regarding conflict of interest are exaggerated and conspiratorial, to be sure. There’s no reason to believe that Kansan staffers are trading endorsements or favorable coverage for the University’s money. However, one of the first lessons in journalism school is that the appearance of a conflict of interest is every bit as damaging as the reality of such a conflict. . . . Heilman’s measure would undoubtedly result in a great deal of pain for the Kansan. However, the paper’s staffers should recognize that, in the long run, divorcing themselves from Student Senate money would only buttress their credibility.”

–

Click on the screenshot above to watch a relevant Daily Kansan video report.

–

According to a Student Press Law Center report, Kansan staff are questioning the real motives behind this sudden, unexpected funding-cut push.  Also in the report, SPLC Executive Director Frank LoMonte publicly confirmed what those of us in collegemediatopia already know: Financial support for campus publications from student fees is common across higher education, making the KU Student Senate’s cries of ethical foul play ring especially hollow.

–

To Be Continued…

Read Full Post »

Eternal Ethical Question: A Student (Journalist’s) Identity

Posted in College Media, Journalism, Journalism Ethics, New Media, Student Newspaper, Teachable Moment, tagged , , , , , , on March 9, 2010 | 1 Comment »

One of the oldest student journalism ethical tightropes unfurled with a bit of a new media twist recently at Cornell University. As Cornell Daily Sun public editor Rob Tricchinelli explained in his excellent write-up on the situation:

–

Mike Wacker ’10 is a Sun columnist whose ‘Wack Attack’ column appears alternate Wednesdays. Wacker recently arranged to speak with Andrew Brokman ’11, an at-large representative in the Student Assembly, to discuss something that came up during an S.A. meeting. During their conversation, Wacker started taking notes; Brokman then told him that it was not on the record.   This dispute arose over the nature of the discussion and whether it could be attributed to Brokman. Brokman told me via e-mail that he thought Wacker was coming to him not as a columnist but as a concerned constituent. He was under the impression that their discussion was to be a private one between representative and student, and nothing more.

–

The bigger question the Brockman-Wack brouhaha raises: When does the student part end and the student journalist part begin? Students inhabit a uniquely hyperlocal universe while enrolled at university, one in which their identities are often overlaid or might shift at a moment’s notice- from student to classmate to housemate to athlete to student organization board member to Greek lifer to student employee in the office of communications.

–

As Tricchinelli writes, “Professional journalists generally have few other roles in their lives; they report stories and their personal lives are separate. As college students, however, the likelihood is higher for Sun journalists to be part of campus groups and organizations; the chance of them being involved in what the Sun covers is quite high.”  As evidenced by the Cornell saga, even an arranged sitdown can cause issues in a real world setting and new media realm in which everyone is always someone else simultaneously.

–

Case in point: Brokman, student government representative, is also a student journalist of sorts.  He is the co-creator and overseer of OneCornell Media, an online “uncensored voice of Cornell students.”  So technically of course, he could write about Wack coming to write about him, and so on and so on.

–

What do you think?

Read Full Post »

Arizona Daily Wildcat Covers an Arrest, Loses an Editor

Posted in College Media, Journalism, Journalism Ethics, Student Newspaper, Teachable Moment, tagged , , , , , on December 29, 2009 | Leave a Comment »

The managing editor of the Arizona Daily Wildcat at the University of Arizona was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct late last month during a taping of ESPN’s “College GameDay.” Students staffers at the top-notch paper suddenly faced the eternal ugh-tastic j-dilemma: how to cover one of your own.

–

Their decision ultimately led to some nasty in-fighting and the managing editor’s forced resignation. As the pub’s adviser put it: “There is never a dull moment on a student newspaper.”

–

According a recent Tucson Weekly report, the paper’s editor in chief Alex Dalenberg and staff decided the incident was newsworthy and deserved coverage, as embarrassing as it might be for the ME. In Dalenberg’s words:

–

After the incident at ‘College GameDay,’ I suspended [the ME] for five issues. I felt that was appropriate punishment. We also decided to run a story on the incident, because [he] was a public figure at a public event the Wildcat was covering. However, even after [he] left for the day, he insisted on dictating how the newspaper published the story about himself. [He] continued to make phone calls and send text messages, some of them laced with profanity, making specific demands about how the story be run. For example, he demanded we run an unedited personal statement regarding the arrest, and also demanded that we not run his ‘f*cking’ mug shot.

–

The response from the ME:

–

I got a tip from a colleague in the newsroom that not only was Alex not going to run my statement that he told me he would run, but he was considering putting my headshot in the paper, along with quotes taken out of context from my statement and the police report. I immediately texted Alex asking why he was doing this and (was) not running my statement.

–

The ME resigned from the paper that night after a fairly vicious phone call with Dalenberg, who threatened to fire him for his alleged editorial interference and general insubordination. The Weekly piece goes on to document a larger battle raging throughout the semester between Dalenberg and his second-in-command that include allegations of shoddy leadership, intra-dating favoritism, and competing factions on the paper’s editorial board scheming like “Survivor” rivals. (Although I do wish the article had cited more than just the ousted ME for some of the more nefarious allegations.)

–

And to think the biggest Wildcat drama this term seemed to be the 10,000 stolen papers!

–

My take: The incident and arrest are news. The ME himself apparently contributed to an editorial published around the time of his arrest that bashed “rabid UA football fan behavior.” He was cited for something right along those lines. The paper has to suck it up and cover its own when warranted or its credibility plummets. The published piece seems quite objective and just the right length, in my scholarly and bloggy opinion. It is sad- but I suppose inevitable- that when such a dramatic dust-up occurs between a paper’s heavyweights (literally in this case the #1 and #2), it reveals deeper fissures and leads to squabbling over past slights that do nothing but intensify everyone’s pain.

–

In the end, this is simply one more example of what a wild and woolly beast collegemediatopia can be.  The Wildcat adviser: “The paper moves on. In the scope of things, this is one of the most minor staff flaps ever.”

Read Full Post »

Student Newspaper Drops Rising Death Toll from Front Page

Posted in College Media, Journalism, Journalism Ethics, Student Newspaper, tagged , , , , , , on September 1, 2009 | 2 Comments »

The new blog is happening- aiming for a post-Labor-Day debut.  In the meantime, a death toll is missing.  In a recent staff editorial, eds. at The Daily Toreador, the student newspaper at Texas Tech, announced that the paper will no longer publish a tally of soldiers killed in fighting in Iraq on its front page. The feature has run on page one amid controversy in all Toreador issues since fall 2005.

–

In a comment to the editorial online, a former Toreador managing editor explained: “When we first created it, we thought it would be a constant presence to remind students of the toll of war. The beauty of the toll was that its number never lied. There was no spin or bias behind those four digits. The numbers told the story, and readers were left to interpret their meaning.”

–

At the time, depending on the reader, the tally’s prominent placement in the paper was interpreted, ironically, as either pro-military spin or anti-Bush bias. Presently, with editors attributing its removal to President Obama’s Iraqi withdrawal pledge, the latter criticism is cropping up as most common in online comments.

–

According to the editorial: “The decision to remove it came after President Barack Obama pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq by 2011 and focus attention to Afghanistan. . . . At a time when the United States is engaged in multiple foreign conflicts, the editorial board feels it [the death toll] no longer serves readers as it once did.”

–

One commenter’s comeback: “You mean to say the United States is engaged in so much war and loss that it serves no purpose to track war and loss? . . . You’re taking down the death toll at a time when you should be expanding it to include such an important escalating theater where Obama is sending more troops: Afghanistan.  Or include contractor deaths (which everyone forgets).  Or coalition troops.  Most [of] the deaths occurring in Afghanistan are college-aged men and women, yet you guys feel it’s not topical or relevant or serves any purpose to college-aged readers?”

–

My take: The Toreador team is truly in a tough spot, one they must expect, respect, and build upon journalistically.  If running the death toll in the first place four years ago caused such a brouhaha (even a Student Government resolution attempting to remove it!), current staff must have realized that dropping it was also not going to slip past the dogs of war.  So embrace the controversy!  Run competing editorials.  Publish a story about eds. at professional papers who have run or still run similar features.  Spotlight a Q&A with military experts about the difficulty of keeping a concrete death count in an era of modern warfare in which the fighting locations and starting and end dates are constantly subject to change (“Mission Accomplished” banners aside). The tally may now be gone, but the conversation about its meaning does not have to end.

Read Full Post »

Minnesota Daily Makes *Tough* Online Ethics Decision

Posted in College Media, Journalism, Journalism Ethics, New Media, Student Newspaper, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 14, 2009 | 1 Comment »

In the mega-huge photo above the story, the student is smiling.   From the story and caption, we quickly learn the student’s age (23), his origins (Tunisia), his academic concentration while studying at the University of Minnesota (English literature), his first name (Ashref), and even the style and color of his shoes (red Keds).  In late July, when The Minnesota Daily originally ran the story on the study abroad experiences of Ashref and almost two dozen other North African students, readers also knew his last name and the last names of certain family members.

–

Now that info has been cut and this editor’s note, in bold, sits atop the piece: “The last name of the main subject of this story, Ashref, and his family members has been removed from this story since its original publication. The source became concerned of the negative implications that may come from speaking critically of the Tunisian government and its programs upon his return to his home country.”

–

After the piece was published and placed online, Daily eds. were contacted not only by the student but also university officials and the U.S. State Department about removing various identifying information in the piece, already published- proving as a separate editor’s note confirmed that, unlike print news, content disseminated online is “no longer written in stone.”

–

In the words of Holly Miller, the paper’s editor in chief: “This situation presented the Daily with an unfamiliar dilemma. What do we do when a source — who may not have understood the American media process and who might be in physical danger or danger of being repressed by his government — wants something removed or changed after publication?”

–

My take: Obviously, in most cases the decision needs to be ‘no changes allowed,’ especially in respect to the most common related requests- people simply having a change of heart about something said or done or sources’ concerns over embarrassing Google results.  But I do believe the paper acted properly in this instance.

–

The story is still up.  Even the huge photo of Ashref above it still stands.  And Ashref is still named in the piece, sans last name.  Ultimately, the removal of his last name and a few family members’ names does not change the bottom-line nature of the story.  And Miller and her fellow eds. are also respecting that rock-solid online ethics are still murky and that people still need to be protected from speaking their minds in certain parts of the world and from a lack of understanding about “the American media process.”  Staffers rightly consulted an ethics expert.  They fully explained their decision.  And they have publicly stated that they understand not everyone will be in agreement about it.

–

Obviously, this decision needs to be one in a million.  I do believe this one is correct.

Read Full Post »

Emerald Publisher Hired Four Months After Strike About Hiring a Publisher

Posted in College Media, Free Press Fights, Future of Journalism, Journalism, Student Newspaper, tagged , , , , , , , , , on August 1, 2009 | Leave a Comment »

More than four months after staffers at The Emerald, the University of Oregon student newspaper, staged a high-profile, socially-networked strike over the hiring of an outside publisher, an outside publisher (with an insider’s credibility) has been named.

–

According to The Eugene Register-Guard, the student paper’s board voted unaminously to hire Kellee Weinhold after a national search and a looksy at 80 candidates.  Understatement time: Weinhold *knows* the UO and Eugene media scenes.  In fact, she probably bleeds green and yellow.  She earned undergraduate and master’s degrees from the university, taught journalism courses there, and spent time at both The Oregonian and Eugene Weekly.  She may or may not even own a pet duck.

–

As CMM and other outlets reported back in March, the Emerald temporarily stopped publishing in protest of its board’s attempts to name a publisher without properly addressing the publisher’s power over editorial content and possible conflicts of interest in respect to the person’s affiliation with the university.  Mediation ensued, an agreement was reached, and printing resumed.  And the latest step forward is Weinhold, an individual whom Emeraldites are expressing optimism about.

–

Current Emerald EIC (and former strike organizer) Allie Grasgreen says in a piece on the paper’s Web site: “I’m psyched to start working with Kellee. Her passion for college journalism is infectious, and she has the drive, ideas and understanding of media we need.”

–

Weinhold’s related PR statement: “I am excited to be joining such a storied program at a time of critical change for journalism. I look forward to supporting UO student journalists as they shape the future of the industry.”

–

Results of the new arrangement are of course still to be determined. I give her credit for excellently wording her introductory quote. Her role should be in support.  And most important, to any outside publisher: Let the students do the shaping.

–

Best of luck.

Read Full Post »

Student Plagiarist Mac Arthur Meets with School Officials

Posted in College Media, Journalism, Journalism Ethics, tagged , , on July 19, 2009 | Leave a Comment »

The Independent Florida Alligator is reporting that Hailey Mac Arthur, the University of Florida student recently caught plagiarizing from the New York Times during an internship with a Colorado newspaper, has met with administrators from the university’s College of Journalism and Communication.

–

Due to privacy rules, there is no word on how the meeting went or what the final decision will be regarding Mac Arthur’s status/enrollment in the college or university.  In a separate clarification posted to the site last week, the Alligator noted that its initial report had “incorrectly stated that College of Journalism and Communications Dean John Wright said that Hailey Mac Arthur may be expelled from the College. Wright only stated that administrators would be meeting to discuss Mac Arthur’s status in the College.”

–

My take: Expulsion might be the easy answer, and voluntary transfer by Mac Arthur might be the best way to save face.  But maybe a second chance, handled with appropriate care by school officials and respected unequivocally by Mac Arthur, is the best option for both parties.  Teach her well, enable her to teach others, and let her learn from her mistakes.  Help mold her into an individual and journalist worthy of the college’s name and a university degree.  It’s not too late.

Read Full Post »

Plagiarism Equals Expulsion for Once Mighty Mac Arthur

Posted in College Media, Journalism, Journalism Ethics, tagged , , , , on July 9, 2009 | 11 Comments »

The Independent Florida Alligator has verified it, with the help of UF’s journalism department chair: If confirmed, UF rising junior Hailey Mac Arthur’s NYT’s love-fest/plagiarism will result in her expulsion from the College of Journalism and Communications.  (What about from the university or the journalism field in general or from America or Second Life or the Third World???)

–

A recent Facebook status update from the College of Journalism and Communications Dean John Wright: “One thing is certain. Plagiarism will not be tolerated at the College of Journalism and Communications.”  (By the way, if Wright also tweets, he is officially nominated for “The Coolest Dean … Ever Award.”)

–

Students commenting on a UF media class blog had this to say:

–

“I’m pissed, too! I worked so hard to get into UF because it is one of the best J-schools in the country! Now, what would have gotten my resume put on top of the pile (my hard earned effing degree) will just invoke a wary glance as it gets tossed in the ‘maybe’ pile. This girl lied to keep herself in a position she clearly wasn’t qualified for– if you can’t stand the heat (ie: write your own sh*t), stay out of the newsroom.”

–

“[T]his is really ridiculous why would she do blatant dumbass thing like that i mean plagiarism is messed up any way you slice it but its the ny times man balls to that!”

–

“I also believe that Hailey did a very stupid thing by thinking she could get away with plagiarizing in a daily read newspaper. On the other hand, I do not think that it will cause everyone to think that now every journalism student at UF does the same thing and cause job problems. It was also just in the paper today that a UF student shot and killed someone, that does not mean that now everyone looks down on UF because we are murderers. I believe it is just a minor set back and it will be forgotten shortly.”

–

My take: Let’s all be chill for a minute.  The girl got caught.  She’s being (quite fairly) excoriated across the Web, which is of course not so fun in the age of the blogosphere.  It looks like she’s also rightly heading for expulsion-town, showing there is some justice left in J-ville.  Mighty Mac Arthur has struck out, and she will (and SHOULD) be shut out from any future jobs requiring truth and ethics.  The closest she will ever get to a New York Times job is delivering them.  She is also very young, the part that gives me pause prior to simply wanting to scream at her.  Yes, her blog bio hints at uber-narcissism (Hi, I’m an award-winning journalist…) and with a few internships and other gigs under her belt this was no babe in the woods.  But she is still (or soon, was) a student. Hopefully she has learned a lesson that will stay with her forever (sort of like the Google results for searches of her name that will forever be beyond embarassing).  In the meantime, Alligator peeps, you better start checking the archives.  Plagiarists tend to be serial creeps.

Read Full Post »

Florida Journalism Student Fired for Plagiarizing Stories from New York Times

Posted in Journalism, Journalism Ethics, Teachable Moment, tagged , , , , , on July 8, 2009 | 5 Comments »

Somewhere, Tim Tebow is shaking his fists with rage.  In a case of either sheer unethical boldness or unbelievable ignorance, a University of Florida journalism student has sullied the UF championship facade- plagiarizing parts of articles she wrote as an intern for a Colorado newspaper from none other than the New York freakin’ Times.  (As a friend just mentioned to me: “FYI, you are not even allowed to take the word ‘the’ from the New York- Messiah of National Newspapers- Times.”)

–

According to a Gawker report (sent my way by a distressed UF lover), Hailey Mac Arthur stole scraps from four NYT stories covering everything from sheep shearing to homelessness and spun them as her own for publication in The Colorado Springs Gazette.  In an editor’s note, Mac Arthur’s overseer at the Gazette labeled the shoddy journalism a true “breach of trust.”  Here’s an example he gave of her stolen work:

–

Mac Arthur story in Gazette, July 2, “Bicycle safety a hit-or-miss proposition in Springs”

From the vantage point of a bicycle, the city presents itself as a panorama passing by at a speed somewhere between the blur outside a car window and the plodding pace of walking.

–

Random New York Times story, Oct. 3, 2004, “Spin city“

From the vantage point of a bike, the city presents itself as a savorable panorama passing by at a speed somewhere between the blur outside a car window and the plodding pace of walking.

–

Spot the similarities?  Gawker is the first and certainly won’t be the last to make the Mac Arthur-Maureen Dowd comparison.  (For those stuck on no-journalism-allowed-island recently, Dowd faced scrutiny in May for penning a column that contained an eerily similar passage to a piece posted on a popular blog.)

–

Here’s Gawker‘s take: ”Perhaps the ultimate irony in all of this is that young Hailey Mac Arthur’s writing seems to have some Maureen Dowd-ish qualities to it, no? Too bad Mac Arthur couldn’t get away with concocting some sort of ridiculous ‘my friend told it all to me over the phone’ excuse like Dowd so famously did back in May when she plagiarized TPM’s Josh Marshall. If there’s any justice in the world maybe the Times will give Hailey Mac Arthur her second chance. After all, everyone does deserve one.”

–

According to the bio on Mac Arthur’s blog, (a cached version, since, as Gawker confirmed, she’s privatized the blog and erased her profiles on Facebook and LinkedIn) she’s preparing for a trip to Brazil in the fall as part of a UF advanced journalism practicum.  Interesting side question: Should a student’s j-misdeeds as an intern (while representing the university) impact her class standing or enrollment in any way???

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,034 other followers

%d bloggers like this: