Opinion
Neglecting pertinent information hurts credibility
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Cristina Daglas:
- Ruthless criticism has no part in intelligent debate (October 6, 2005)
- Communication lacking between complementary positions at Herald (October 13, 2005)
- Lack of cohesive leads cause Herald readers to quickly lose interest (October 20, 2005)
- Neglecting pertinent information hurts credibility (October 27, 2005)
- Irrelavent stories add little to news coverage (November 10, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
A college newspaper attempting to establish credibility among its peers is no easy task. As it is, students often take what they read in a campus paper with a grain of salt. However, much of what is written in campus papers is honest, straightforward and well written.
Still, reporters and editors are sitting next to you in your journalism classes, learning the same techniques and writing styles readers are. Often, staffers aren't even journalism majors. But when a team of reporters and editors negligently or, even worse, consciously leaves out a crucial detail in a story, credibility is instantly shot.
Last week, University of Wisconsin political science professor Donald Downs spoke at the Memorial Union about his new book, "Restoring Free Speech and Liberty to Campus." In doing so, the David Horowitz controversy of 2001 was naturally discussed.
For those unaware, Horowitz — a conservative author — ran an advertisement in 2001 in The Badger Herald condemning slavery reparations for African-Americans. The Herald stood by its running of the advertisement and never apologized.
Editors were threatened, protests erupted and national attention was drawn to the issue. Several newspapers refused to run the advertisement, and others who did run it later apologized for the act.
The sentence in question from Friday's otherwise well-written article "Downs speaks on speech" reads, "The conservative television legal analyst and columnist ran an advertisement in a campus newspaper confronting the notion of slavery reparations."
The omission is clear. It was not "a campus newspaper," but rather the campus newspaper this piece ran in —The Badger Herald. This detail was necessary to the credibility of the story.
UW seniors were not on campus in 2001, and thus the majority of current undergrads are likely altogether unaware of the Horowitz issue. This is yet another reason the detail was needed.
Alumni are not pleased with the omission, and I believe it was irresponsible as well; however, Badger Herald editors are standing by it.
It is always necessary to disclose pertinent information in articles and columns. This is not the first incident of the year where disclosure was crucial to the credibility of a piece but inappropriately left out.
In the future, when in question, disclose. And, speaking of omissions …
As with any Tuesday, feedback poured in this week regarding Darryn Beckstrom's latest piece, "Chastity seeks voice on campuses." And, as with any amount of feedback, a few valid points surfaced alongside the potshots. The most notable came from Sex Out Loud organizers clearly (and rightly so) offended by Beckstrom's backhanded slap at the goal of the organization.
Beckstrom wrote that Sex Out Loud "seeks to promote sexuality" when the organization's mission is to promote "healthy sexuality through sex-positive education and activism."
The letter to the editor written by these organizers and not yet published in The Badger Herald (hopefully due to space constraints) outlines the problems with such an outright insult better than I can in the space provided.
This was another case of a clear, irresponsible omission. If you want to be taken seriously with any argument — regardless of its popularity — present the facts in full and in a mature fashion. The rest of the remarks in the article are, as usual, a slap at the majority of students on campus. That's one way to bring in readers, I suppose.
Regardless, the moral of the story: include all pertinent information. Readers appreciate the honesty.
Cristina Daglas, former editor in chief of The Badger Herald, is now the paper's ombudsman. Readers are encouraged to e-mail thoughts, criticisms and observations of the paper to cdaglas@badgerherald.com or call her at (608) 257-4712 ext. 168. Her column appears every Thursday on this page.
9 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
The omission is not imperative to the article. The article was not even focused on the Horrowitz article. Moreover, Downs' analysis focuses on the reaction to the article; not the decision to run the article in the first place. Accordingly, the Herald's decision is pretty divorced from the discussion.
Daglas - stop abusing your position to slam a fellow writer just because you don't know the difference between opinion and news.
Once again, worthless words. I don't care to read about the problems of your paper. I don't pick up your newspaper to read about your newspaper. This is a waste of space and probably only matters to two people: Ms. Daglas and herself. Keep these interdepartmental memos out of the paper, they are a waste of space that could be better utilized with a Dols or Beckstrom column, although Beckstrom seems to hate everything in the world. Just use your space for something the readers are ACTUALLY interested in.
No matter how pertinent a letter to the editor is or whoever it is from, it does not guarantee placement in the paper and therefore should not be labeled as an irresponsible omission.
Hot damn, the last fourth of the column is an actual ombudsman piece. At this rate, Cristina, you'll have it down by St. Patrick's Day!
What is a news ombudsman?
A news ombudsman receives and investigates complaints from newspaper readers or listeners or viewers of radio and television stations about accuracy, fairness, balance and good taste in news coverage. He or she recommends appropriate remedies or responses to correct or clarify news reports.
So, how often does the monitor stop by to see if any comments meet their approval?
The long delay seem to make responding to other comment impossible - but maybe that's tohe objective.
Yeah, it's not as fun as it used to be with this hours-long delay.
She did perform Ombudsman duty in a paragraph or two -- was it by accident? Most of what she is writing has no place in the printed paper...
Someone restore respectability to the Opinion Page. To start, wipe this column off the pages. Really meaningless stuff with no tangible value to students at all.