If someone were to ask me what I like least about my job, I would say that I'm becoming far too jaded for someone so young. Two years of car crashes and government scandals have left me skeptical about everything. As far as I can tell, it's a pretty common side effect of news gathering.
But that's not without good reason. A healthy dose of skepticism is necessary to plow through all the baloney journalists get from businesses' press-hungry media liaisons and politicians' spin-happy spokespeople.
Healthy and measured skepticism is something that a journalist can probably only acquire with time and experience, so it doesn't surprise me that it is sometimes lacking in The Cavalier Daily.
For example, a Thursday story about the University's investment in the Mt. Graham Large Binocular Telescope Project in Arizona touted the telescope's two 27-foot mirrors as its "most innovative feature." First of all, says who? That sentence is followed by this one: "The combined light beams from the two mirrors will result in faster light collection and clearer detail, according to the press release."
I would like to know whose press release that is, whose speed the telecope's light collection will exceed, and whose detail they will trump in clarity.
I know next to nothing about telescopes, and if I can learn a thing or two from reading the story, that's great. So, first tell me why I should believe the telescope is indeed innovative -- i.e. tell me who thinks so. Then tell me exactly what's innovative about it. Is the innovation in the number of mirrors? Is it in their size? Or something different altogether?
The headline of a glowing story about a student voter drive Friday called the drive "non-partisan." The story backs it up by quoting the president of the University Democrats saying the drive was "non-partisan." Right.
Let's look at the sponsors. You've got the University Democrats and the local chapter of the National Organization for Women. These are political groups, folks. Perhaps the writer and the president of the UDems meant to say that the registration didn't just target Democrats. That's not really the same as saying it's non-partisan, particularly when many of the groups are, if not directly politically liberal, generally supportive of left-leaning agendas.
I'm interested to know why groups like the College Republicans and, say, a right-to-life group weren't involved. Were they asked? Did they refuse? Some comment couldn't hurt.
Did the organizers count how many students registered as Democrats and how many as Republicans? If so, I'd like to know how many.
These questions should have been asked, not to accuse the organizers of what seems like a positive event, but to get beyond any spinning that might be taking place. Had those questions been answered, the story also would have been more balanced.
Friday's paper also included a news story about the Phi Delta Alpha fraternity's name change to Phi Society. I question first of all why this is more newsworthy than the "News In Brief" item of the same day about the appointment of Pat Lampkin to the post of vice president for student affairs. The name-change seems more brief-able, though I should point out that the story about Lampkin didn't merit the designation "brief." Briefs generally refer to short items. The story about Lampkin was more than 300 words long.
The headline to the fraternity story read: "Fraternity members unanimously vote for different name to better represent values as a group, MGC approves the decision." The story claimed that, "Members of the fraternity have agreed the new name better represents the fraternity's values, Phi Society President Dan Gershwin said."
How, exactly, does the name "Phi Society," better represent the fraternity's values than its previous name, "Phi Delta Alpha?" I'm stumped.
Unfortunately, the story never explains exactly what kind of values are represented by the dumping of the "Delta Alpha" and the addition of the "Society" to the name.
Further in the story, it's clear that Phi Delta Alpha is a local fraternity formed by former members of Phi Delta Theta. Theta sued Alpha for copyright violations, claiming Alpha continued to use Theta symbols and terms, including the use of "Phi Delts" to refer to its members.
It sounds to me like the Phi Society has successfully spun The Cavalier Daily. Did the lawsuit from Phi Delta Theta have nothing to do with the name change? The story does say the suit settlement didn't call for a name change. But the change still could have been a result of the suit. Was it really a decision about what represents the fraternity's values?
Maybe. But let's call them on the carpet anyway. Next time, ask the fraternity president, "Are you seriously telling me that the name change had nothing to do with the settlement?" Then quote him, and let that speak for itself.
Also, the story didn't have sufficient reaction from Phi Delta Theta about the name change. Theta's president should have been asked if he was pleased with the name change, and what he thought about it.
All this is to say, reporters should rarely, if ever, just take someone's word. Ask the hard questions. Cross-check your information. Do the research. And then report what you've found. Don't get spun.
(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.
