OPINION & EDITORIAL
Herald coverage of TAA well focused
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:
- Finally. (November 21, 2005)
- Editorial board wrong on teaching assistants (March 8, 2005)
- Finding the dotted line (November 2, 2005)
- Editorial Board errs on TAA contract (November 28, 2005)
- Herald unleashed childish attack on Kumar (December 8, 2005)
by Cristina Daglas
Thursday, December 1, 2005
After more than two and a half years of negotiations, the Teaching Assistants Association and the state finally came to a tentative agreement last week.
The Badger Herald obtained a copy of the contract and printed a thorough explanation of the possible terms in a news story in the Monday, Nov. 21, edition. An editorial also made the cut that same day, which cleverly commented on what the board believes to be a one-time $163 bonus that rings in at just $1 more than calculated health-care costs for 2006.
After the editorial ran, the TAA's co-president wrote in to the paper thanking the editorial board for speaking in a positive fashion regarding the tentative agreement but seeking to clarify the "suspicious" $1 health-insurance claim. As with any insurance plan, premiums differ for single-insured individuals compared to those with families to support. In her letter to the editor, Samaa Abdurraqib explained these financial differences.
So, the "suspicious" number may just be a coincidence but it's an awfully interesting one at that, and I commend the editorial board for taking the time to notice it. Whatever the case may be and whoever is right in the end is a moot point at this time. But the dialogue that occurred on the pages of The Badger Herald this past week is a prime example of stellar journalism.
A news story was written, an editorial followed and reader feedback landed in the paper just a few days later. The TAA contract issue could not have played out better journalistically speaking especially considering past relations between the two entities.
Every week when I write this column, a "dedicated" reader leaves me a friendly reminder on the website of what my job description is. Oh, how I love this weekly comment. What this reader may not understand is that I spend quite a bit of time every week looking through online feedback and attempting to gauge the issues readers are reacting to both positively and negatively.
If I'm lucky enough to find a column that sparked a great deal of discussion, I will speak to it. But unfortunately, during this process, I typically don't find much. Online feedback has decreased immensely and little meaningful conversation appears daily on the site. It's truly a shame that dialogue is dwindling.
However, while online feedback may be sub par in ultimately promoting healthy discussion among members of the University of Wisconsin community, the opinion page has hosted a number of well-written letters to the editor in the past week, including the TAA piece.
The letters have provided sound clarifications to articles and thought out critiques. When said letters and guest pieces are printed, an element of balance graces the page and enhances credibility for the paper in its entirety.
The added perk is reading what members of the community who don't write for the Herald are thinking. We all know columnists can be a tad radical at times so it's nice to see what is, at times, grounding commentary.
While I would love to see online discussion spark back up — minus the inappropriate comments that used to flood the site — I stand thrilled that letters to the editor and guest pieces are making it onto the page. Definitely a good way to keep the discussion rolling.
Anonymous (December 1, 2005 @ 9:32am):
I do not believe you have a copy of the settled contract. You obtained a copy of the ratification ballot, which is a very different thing. The new contract has not been ratified, let alone printed.
Anonymous (December 1, 2005 @ 10:11am):
If dialogue is dwindling in the comments, you may want to consider that it's a result of the declining quality of the writing in this paper.
Anonymous (December 1, 2005 @ 10:54am):
Cristina, after reading the editorial board column and Samaa's response, you change the qualification of what you call $1 health care premiums from 'suspicious' to 'interesting' yet provide no reason as to why you would use these seemingly pejorative labels. If you would please explain what you believe to be the journalistic impact of this discovery, which was not concealed from anyone, it would be appreciated. I have read quite a number of the Badger Herald's op-ed pieces on the TAA, and have found somewhat less journalistic merit there than you apparently have.
Take for example the editorial board pieces at the time of the strike two years ago, which claimed the strike was wrong in part because the TAA had not opposed higher tuition for undergraduates and thus did not have the students' interests in mind. This was an outright lie on the part of the ed board, and this was brought to their attention only to be ignored and have the falsehood repeated in a later column. Frankly, the paper should have faced a lawsuit for libel for that bit of 'stellar journalism'.
And tell me, why has the BH never (to my knowledge) recognized that it is vital for this university to have TA's that are funded at a similar level to TA's at peer institutions? You certainly recognize that cost of living has gone up over the past few years, but never argue for a raise on behalf of the TAA to offset that increase. It would seem to me, and many others, that it is the BH that does not have the best interests of students of UW in mind.
Anonymous (December 1, 2005 @ 11:27am):
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 (December 1, 2005 @ 11:29am):
"dedicated"?
Anonymous (December 1, 2005 @ 2:07pm):
I agree that online discussion is pretty weak, and there are several things that could be done to fix that. In my opinion, the problem with online comments is that they have a very short life span. There is little incentive to put much time or thought into feedback because 1) the author is never going to respond, 2) the article disappears hours after the feedback is approved and posted, and 3) even the best feedback is never printed in the paper. As a result, we generally see hastily written retorts more than an actual discussion. Leaving the articles on the website longer would contribute to the discussion and might lead to an actual back and forth conversation. Having columnists reply to a handful of thoughtful comments (possibly in the daily weblog that was last updated March 17) would also take the discussion in a more constructive direction. There are several columnists who seem to write articles to get a reaction out of people (Mac's article about gay marriage leading to man-dog marriage, would be an example of the genre), and this might make that type of article more useful. Printing a couple of comments (or excerpts from comments) the next day would also give incentive to write thoughtfully and might continue the debate past the first round of responses to an article. Immature responses are unavoidable, but there are things that could be done to create more constructive conversations.
Anonymous (December 4, 2005 @ 1:22am):
Maybe you could speak to why you are so qualified to criticize the work of other students on a regular basis. I don't mind the idea of this column but come on, you have no professional experience to speak of so just what makes you so special that anyone should give a crap about your column?
Anonymous (December 5, 2005 @ 8:16pm):
Agreed with the last post 100%!!!
I can't believe that you're mystified over the lack of online feedback. Hello!? It takes BH about 6-8 hours to post messages. Meanwhile people can go to any number of message boards and post their thoughts immediately. If you were committed to getting online feedback then you would commit resources to doing a better job of managing it. Yeah, yeah last year it was out of control however your "solution" has pretty much killed off any meaningful comments. Maybe you should require all posters to register with a valid e-mail address and name that someone actually verifies. Maybe that would cut back on the freaks from the NRA and WTDY that post when they don't even live in the area and/or have nothing to do with UW.
