STATISTICS can be difficult for anyone, but they are especially so for a journalist who has to accurately present them to his readers. Recently, statistics about state funding of the University have taken center stage in The Cavalier Daily. It seems as if everyone has something to say about the budget and Gov. Mark R. Warner. The Cavalier Daily's unenviable task is making sure everyone, regardless of their opinion, is using the same information.
Last Monday's opinion section showed how a newspaper can inadvertently confuse readers. A column on page A6 said that the University "has received roughly 20 percent of its funding from the state in recent years." A column on the next page maintained that before recent budget cuts, "only 13 percent of the University's budget came from the state."
One of them is wrong. How is a reader supposed to know which one is right? A reader depends on the newspaper to provide accurate information - he should not have to verify this kind of data on his own. Unfortunately, The Cavalier Daily has fallen short in providing a complete data set in other areas as well.
One facet that has been a persistent problem is the lack of pictures with some stories. The paper as a whole lacks consistent use of "head shots" - column-wide head-and-shoulders photos. Head shots provide an easy way to slip in another graphic element, and they are an excellent alternative to big, boring photos of someone speaking. I have seen a feature on a wrestler without a photo of any kind. Not good.
Recently, Tuesday's paper contained a feature on two basketball players where the primary photograph was a picture of their backs. Considering the point of the story was how the two players rarely play in games, a photo of the two of them sitting on the bench (in other words, a photo of their faces) could not have been hard to get.
Tuesday's front page contained the kind of mistake that can be easy to commit for inexperienced journalists. For a story about a student labor union, the subheadline said that "University students and law professors question legality of group." Only one law professor is quoted in the story, so "professors" is clearly wrong. It is akin to writing "sources said" when only one anonymous source exists.
Two letters to the editor in Thursday's edition pointed out factual mistakes in stories. One letter pointed out inaccuracies in a story about the Bloomfield honor cases. Making mistakes in a continuing story can be troublesome because reporters working on later stories may refer to earlier stories to get the background facts. If the earlier stories are wrong, and no one filed the corrections where a reporter would find them, the mistake will occur repeatedly.
The other mistake concerned politics, and a columnist had misstated the facts and favored Democrats in the process. This is a cardinal sin because the perception of the liberal media spinning everything its way is an ever-present danger. When a journalist makes this kind of mistake, that is grist for the mill and may undermine his or her credibility.
One might expect the "liberal media" to be happy that a Democrat like Warner is speaking at graduation. One would have been extremely surprised, then, to read the Feb. 14 editorial in The Cavalier Daily, "Warner? You must be joking."
To say that this editorial got folks' attention is an understatement. In the seven issues between that day and today's issue, I counted four letters to the editor, including one from Warner's press secretary, and a guest viewpoint from a member of the Board of Visitors. I received two e-mails about the editorial, both of which were negative (An aside about the guest viewpoint - The Cavalier Daily spelled the author's first name Terrence, but then quoted him the next day and spelled it Terence. Pick the right one and stay with it).
Back to Warner. The editorial stated "Warner just finished passing a tuition hike." According to the Feb. 22 story "General Assembly passes budgets," tuition increases have not been finalized. So this prong of the argument was another case of misstating the facts - this should not happen in the editorial.
The two readers were unhappy with the tone of the editorial. Clearly, the editorial was sarcastic, but the complaints went further. One reader said it sounded "like a bunch of snotty children," and another called it "inappropriate and unprofessional."
In this case, I feel compelled to call "no foul." Would I have written an editorial like that? No, but that does not matter. A student newspaper has a license occasionally to be more irreverent than professional newspapers.
If the editors were outraged by Warner's selection, they have a right to express it. Disrespectful? Maybe, but I don't believe you have to respect someone just because he won an election. The editors should have paid more attention to facts, but a sarcastic assessment of Warner and other possible speakers is fairly harmless. No harm, no foul.
(Matthew Branson can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
