AMONG the duties most highly prized by journalists is that of holding influential and powerful people accountable for their actions. Reporters break stories of inappropriate or illegal activities every day. Governments -- national, state and local -- have come crashing down as a result of probing investigative journalism.
Because allegations in print are so powerful, the profession has set very high ethical standards for investigative reporting. In a recent story regarding a congressional candidate's alleged misuse of University messenger mail, The Cavalier Daily failed to meet some of these standards.
I want to make clear that I'm not skewering the newspaper for the mistakes I'm about to point out. The story in question does violate basic journalistic ethics, but it's important to remember that The Cavalier Daily's staff, like all other students at the University, are learning. Most of these students have never taken a journalism class.
Given that, the fact that they broke this story in the first place, and did as good a job with it as they did, is remarkable. I received a letter from University Democrats Vice President Katie Hamm regarding a Sept. 27 news story, "Messenger mail used for political fundraising." I would not usually print a reader's name, but in this case, it's essential to the analysis of what happened.
In the article, Cavalier Daily Associate Editor Paul Quinlan reported that invitations to a fundraiser by Democrat Meredith Richards had been distributed via messenger mail. Quinlan quoted University Mail Services Manager Jack Parker saying the invitations should not have been sent through messenger mail. University Democrats President Ian Amelkin, Richards campaign spokesman Dave Sagarin and University Senior Vice President William W. Harmon were also quoted or paraphrased in the article.
Hamm objected to the way The Cavalier Daily conducted its investigation. Her concerns are justifiable. In his investigation of the story, Quinlan never disclosed to the Richards campaign, the University Democrats or Harmon the accusations of impropriety that were the focus of the story. They did not have an opportunity to answer those allegations. Clearly, that's not the way to conduct an investigation. Quinlan should have given the University Democrats, the campaign and Harmon a chance to defend themselves.
But sometimes journalists are nervous -- and justifiably so -- that sources will get skittish when cornered with an accusation. It happens all the time. Sometimes people won't talk, not realizing that a "no comment" often looks more incriminating than a brief statement. It's up to the reporter to use his judgment to coax as much information as he can out of his sources. Get the facts fast, but always, always, always give them an opportunity to defend themselves. The reporter should not be the judge and the jury. He should provide information to the public, so that they can decide what to think.
Hamm's other concern was with what statements Quinlan chose to report. He cited Amelkin as saying that Harmon had produced the 600 faculty names for the mailing list and authored the invitation. According to Hamm, Amelkin did give Quinlan that information, but referred him to Hamm for confirmation.
When Quinlan talked to Hamm, she had a different story: that she herself had created and printed the invitations on her computer. Quinlan was skeptical -- and as a journalist, he can and should be skeptical. He had a hunch that Amelkin's original statement was the truth. But he shouldn't have just gone with it. Quinlan should have called Amelkin back to see if he agreed with Hamm's statement. He also could have tried calling Harmon again to see if he had, indeed, written the invitation. If stories still didn't add up, he should have reported both claims, properly attributed.
Because ultimately, if there is conflicting information and a reporter has no way of proving beyond a doubt which is correct, he can't just go with his hunch. He has to report the story -- which means reporting that there is conflicting information. Often, inexperienced reporters will think they have to boil down the truth in every situation. Ideally, that's how it would work. But sometimes it's just not possible. In cases like that, all he can do is report the various different stories. With time, he can try to determine which is correct.
So there it is, Journalism 101. Let's call it a learning experience and move on. Hopefully, The Cavalier Daily will continue to break important stories, and hopefully, in the future, its reporters will conduct their investigations fairly and thoroughly.
In the meantime, they can take heart in the positive effect of their work. In an Oct. 1 story, The Cavalier Daily reported that the Richards campaign and the University Democrats were planning to reimburse Mail Services for the cost associated with delivering the invitations. That's journalism at work.
(Masha Herbst can be reached at ombud@
cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
