HERE IS the first sentence of the article, "Casteen names Bruner Darden School dean" (Nov. 17): "President John T. Casteen, III announced Tuesday that Robert F. Bruner accepted a five-year appointment as dean of the Darden Business School."
Here is the first sentence of a UVa press release about the topic: "University of Virginia President John T. Casteen III announced today the appointment of Robert F. Bruner as dean of the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration."
Sometimes there's only one way to say something, and it can be very difficult for journalists to cover a very straightforward topic and avoid saying the same thing a million others have said.
Sometimes, too, it's hard for writers to get a phrase out of their heads once they've already read it. Once, after brainstorming for 30 minutes -- an eternity when you're on deadline -- I nearly filed a story with the exact same pun as the press release, thinking I brilliantly came up with it myself.
I just don't think that's what happened here.
There's more than one major reason why tweaking just a few words isn't a good journalistic practice. Besides bringing down the newspaper's credibility and reputation in the eyes of anyone who also read the release, it runs the risk of repeating a sentence written by a spokesperson with different aims than journalists writing for readers.
In this case, the sentence doesn't give casual readers the information they need. Who, for instance, is Robert F. Bruner? A parent or first year might not know. The president of the University is given more identification than Bruner simply by identifying him as president.
When misspeaks are misleading
The article "University prepares for final game of season" (Nov. 18), about crowd behavior at the final football game of the season, quotes University Police Capt. Michael Coleman warning students to be careful. In it, Coleman refers to an incident at the University of Minnesota on Oct. 22 when a student was killed after being struck by a goal post pulled down by students and fans who had rushed the field. The article quoted him this way: "'The big thing is [students] should not be on the field,' Coleman said. 'It is potentially hazardous. There has been one stadium murder this year [at Minnesota]. Students need to protect their own safety.'"
Editor-in-Chief Patrick Harvey said the paper did not misquote Coleman, but they should have explained what he was referring to if the quote had to be included.
In fact, the paper should have paraphrased what he said. If a source misspeaks or gets something slightly wrong in a quote, it cannot just put in the paper and explained after the sentence. At the time of the interview, the reporter should realize that the source made a mistake, correct him or her, and ask the question again. Or, if the mistake is realized after the fact, call back.
If all else fails, write around it and don't use the quote. Say that Coleman warned students should not to rush the field, referring to a fatal accident at the University of Minnesota. Then use the last part of his quote. This way, the paper avoids the risk of confusing or misleading the reader.
Also, when a source is wrong in print, he or she can be embarrassed
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe 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 | 5 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 | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
