STUDENT journalism is farfrom perfect, and publications on Grounds, this newspaper included, are no exception. But over the past three weeks, coverage of University issues by one of Charlottesville's "professional" news organs has made student reporters look like seasoned veterans in comparison.
The Hook, which lauds itself as "Charlottesville's best weekly newspaper," has done our community the disservice of poorly covering University topics in each of its past three issues. Three weeks ago, The Hook's cover story, "How U.Va. Turns its Back on Rape," lambasted administrators for insufficient prosecution of accused sexual assault. The next week's cover story, "The Verdict: Sisk's Family Speaks Out," questioned the three-year sentence doled out to former University student Andrew Alston after he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. And last week, in a follow-up, the paper reported on the Nov. 17 University protest against sexual assault.
In all three articles Hook reporters cast aside the most basic journalistic principle, objectivity, in favor of viciously slanted reporting. Instead of offering the facts, the paper marred coverage of serious topics with manipulation and blatant invective.
In the spirit of objectivity, it is important to note that organizations like The Hook frequently defend unconventional reporting by noting that they are not normal newspapers but rather "alternative weeklies," publications that offer news intertwined with opinion. That said, there is a right and wrong way to approach alternative news, something The Hook has yet to grasp.
Alternative weeklies attempt to compete with mass-market newspapers by offering news coupled with intelligent opinion, savvy wit and reasoned commentary. Therefore, readers do not expect the same objective approach to reporting they demand from The Washington Post. But readers do not expect propaganda either. Good alternative news presents the same facts found in objective reporting. Rather than manipulate them, it infuses them with opinion, allowing well-reported, balanced facts to support an underlying assertion.
Sadly, The Hook's coverage of recent University events does not measure up to this standard.
The Hook's Nov. 11 cover story detailed the experience of a University student who accused another student of rape. The University's Sexual Assault Board convicted the accused student, though law enforcement authorities found insufficient evidence to prosecute him. The Hook's story took the accuser's side from the beginning, immediately labeling her a victim even though the accused maintains his innocence. A painstaking narrative of the accuser's version of events, which vilifies the accused by name, was provided and supplemented with vehement castigation of University policy and assorted quotes decrying the current state of affairs. But not until the second half of the article did the writer deign to allow the accused student a brief response.
In an e-mail, the news editor of The Hook denied allegations of intentionally slanted reporting, noting that some stories appear lopsided due to an "imbalance of sources." But in such a situation, good journalism gives equal position to opposing opinions, however brief, and juxtaposes skewed opinion with balanced factual reporting. The Hook took another route.
While the story was replete with emotional assault against accused assailants and the University, it dismissed the painful possibility of false prosecution and declined to investigate the complexity of sexual assault policies on campus.
There was certainly a valid story to be told, but instead of presenting it, The Hook published what amounted to an ad hominem attack on a student and a condemnation of administrators that resorted to sentimentality and sophomorically buried opposing viewpoints under layers of diatribe.
The Hook's Nov. 18 coverage of the Alston trail's outcome was no better. From the lead sentence, the article implied Alston's sentencing was lax. Once again, the writer inked line after line of emotional critique, complemented by downcast photos of Walker Sisk's family and unsubstantiated tirades by Sisk's friends. And once again, any contrary opinion was buried pages into the story. Instead of discussing both families' grief and dissatisfaction, the story made repeated jabs at the Alston family's wealth and avoided citing opinion contrary to that of Sisk's acquaintances.
Last week, The Hook's coverage of the Nov. 17 silent sexual assault protest was pitched as a follow-up to the cover story on rape. Like the cover story, the Nov. 25 article painted a black-and-white picture: outraged protesters diametrically opposed to the administration. In reality, event organizers stressed that they did not blame the University and simply wanted to raise awareness and work productively toward a solution.
No news, not even the alternative variety, ought to take sides. Even coverage with a message must avoid sensationalism and manipulation. Intelligent, professional writing is able to present objective facts in a balanced manner and still make a point. Unfortunately, The Hook has chosen to treat our community's most sensitive topics in a remarkably unprofessional manner.
Not only do good journalists have an obligation to report fairly, but objective consideration inevitably makes a pointed argument stronger. Even a rookie knows that.
Nick Chapin's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at nchapin@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: The truth about nuclear power in Northern Virginia
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoYoungkin is trying to entice data centers to move to Northern Virginia for his own political gain, and presenting this to the taxpayer as a service to the citizen is deceiving.
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 4 days agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | November 20, 2024We need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
