OPINION & EDITORIAL
Avoidable errors mar otherwise well-written articles
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Cristina Daglas:
- 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)
- Avoidable errors mar otherwise well-written articles (November 17, 2005)
- Herald coverage of TAA well focused (December 1, 2005)
Related Stories:
- One step forward, two steps back (September 4, 2006)
- Go Aggies (February 1, 2005)
- Covering the gap (March 10, 2004)
- Real student politics (April 23, 2002)
- In-state tuition hike acceptable (November 26, 2002)
by Cristina Daglas
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Addressing the issue that is tuition, socio-economic status and affirmative action is no easy task. It's complicated, taxing and often depressing. And it's been done more than once to say the least.
It's easy to say tuition is too pricey, more students from low-income families should attend the University of Wisconsin and minority enrollment should be increased as well. If only it were that easy. We all wish it were that easy.
One of the Herald's two Deputy News Editors, Sundeep Malladi, tackled the issue and tackled it well in his in-depth piece Thursday titled, "Rising past the numbers: How UW struggles to keep its doors open to low-income families."
Objectivity is typically difficult to achieve in discussing affirmative action. Controversial topics have many sides and thus it's no easy task to present all of them in detail. Just how many opinions do you need to keep it objective? Talk about a question with a subjective answer.
Malladi presented several sides well and the statistics that accompanied the piece on the bottom half of the page were helpful in understanding the magnitude of the situation. The line graphs also provided strong visuals for the piece. Well written, well researched and well designed. Excellent.
But then it cuts off. The story cuts off! There is no period at the end of the article. No question mark. No exclamation point. I don't like cliffhangers in newspapers. I can barely handle them on TV and at the movies.
I'm going to assume that last quote was where the story was supposed to end and that the final punctuation is all that's missing. But am I wrong? Was there more to the story?
It's a shame when incredibly avoidable errors appear in the paper due to time constraints, a lack of close editing or any myriad of other production hurdles. It simply comes with the territory of publishing any kind of newspaper. But as a daily reader of the Herald, I just have to say I wanted to read more but what I read, I enjoyed. Nice job.
Let's just try to avoid those mistakes.
Speaking of jobs well done though. Instead of criticizing (and harping on) the Victoria's Secret wire story and large photo that ran just a day after my piece discussing the boy's club that the Herald appeared to be last week, I'm going to dedicate the remainder of this column to recognizing three sections that have definitely held their own as of recent.
A pat on the back (or three):
Digest: Filling full pages with relevant wire stories of perfect lengths. It's been a while since someone truly grasped the concept of what a Digest page should be and it's currently being compiled well. The Digest page will never be the be all end all of national and international news but it serves as a nice peek into the latest big stories.
Arts: While I wish the Jeff Tweedy coverage had made the front page of Arts, I can't complain. It was covered. Laura Stanelle's courageous admitting to listening to Lindsay Lohan also proved an interesting read. (I personally prefer Ashlee).
Sports: The full-page poster of Barry Alvarez with quotes about his career was excellent in Monday's paper. As always, the section has had great columns, articles and photos over the past week.
Keep it up. And you all thought I only had negative things to say. Just edit carefully.
Anonymous (November 17, 2005 @ 8:46am):
Tell me, is it easy to cross back over the bridges you've probably burned at the BH with this weekly tripe? why even try to be nice to them anymore?
Anonymous (November 17, 2005 @ 10:47am):
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.
Anonymous (November 17, 2005 @ 10:53am):
Dear Ombudsman,
Please tell the ombudsman that your writing sucks.
"If only it were that easy. We all wish it were that easy."
...
" Sundeep Malladi, tackled the issue and tackled it well in his in-depth piece Thursday"
Anonymous (November 17, 2005 @ 11:27am):
Why is this in the newspaper? I don't understand how the Herald continuously wastes space for this column. Couldn't this just be an internal thing?
Anonymous (November 17, 2005 @ 6:56pm):
As Herald alumnus, I hereby appoint myself "Ombudsman" and order you to get rid of Daglas...oh and move the titles over .1 picas....I hope we are still friends.
Anonymous (November 17, 2005 @ 7:54pm):
This is the most wasted 2 minutes of my life every week.
i could stop reading it. But i feel it more appropriate for you to stop writing it.
Anonymous (November 17, 2005 @ 8:05pm):
Why, oh why, is this crap published??? Why air dirty laundry to the public? And why is some student with absolutely NO professional experience empowered to do this? I could see if the critique came from a noted journalist but what makes this woman so special? She's not!
