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 [email protected] or call her at (608) 257-4712 ext. 168. Her column appears every Thursday on this page.
