IT"S NOT alwayss possible to get all the answers. Often-times conflicts comedsown to he said, she said,arguments. A newspaper's job is to try to answer the questions for the readers, even if the subjects of the story can't answer them for themselves.
If the answers aren't readily available, but the paper attempted to get them, say so.
I bring this up because of a story on Tuesday about the University's plan to give lowest-paid employees a raise. The story, "Casteen announces wage raise," quotes University President John T. Casteen, III, as saying that a group criticizing the University for not giving a bigger raise, which they say is necessary and would constitute a living wage, has not provided numbers or an explanation for its assessment.
The article does not give space to the group, the Living Wage Campaign, to respond. Instead, it quotes group representative Benjamin Van Dyne as saying the number they calculated -- $10.72, compared with the university's offer of $9.37 -- is not illegal to require.
That comment was puzzling, because the legality of the proposal had not yet been called into question in the article.
If a reporter can't answer a question in a daily story, it's not the end of the world. But if there's an obvious question left unanswered, and there's reasons the reporter couldn't get the answers, say that.
In this article, I saw three questions raised and unanswered: Did the Living Wage group provide the University with a breakdown of their statistics;? Why might some think their proposal is illegal? How did both the group and the university reach their figures. In other words, what was the main reason the two numbers are different?
If the answers to those questions are unavailable, include a sentence that says it was not available by press time, if that's the reason. Or, explain that the reporter's phone calls were not returned. Show the readers that the reporter made the effort.
Thankfully, the next day the paper followed up with another full article addressing those concerns, and explaining a bit more of the back-and-forth between the group and Casteen.
Clean up your act
A lot of editing at student newspapers happens late at night by overworked editors who likely eschewed homework for the sake of the story.
That's not an excuse for the sloppiness of the copy in the paper lately. Many of you readers out there, I'm sure, feel the same way as me, because you've been e-mailing me, venting your frustrations.
Editors: Take a look at copy flow. Take a look at your procedures at night. See if you need to schedule in an extra 15 minutes at the end of the night to look over final proofs of the paper more closely.
We readers need clean copy. We want the paper to be easy to read, entertaining and informative. We don't have time to stumble over grammar errors (it's vs. its, for example) or spelling errors or typos. A moving, well-thought-out editorial with an error, an extra word, left in during the course of editing, could wreck the flow for readers and disengage us.
Plus, we want to be able to trust our school paper. Though it might not be entirely logical, many readers feel if a paper can't get a name spelled correctly or use verbs correctly, the overarching information, the meat and potatoes of stories, might not be true, either.
Call for input
I'm going to reissue my request for all readers out there to e-mail me their thoughts on how to make The Cavalier Daily more representative of the student body. What makes minorities stay away from the paper? If you are a minority, how do you view the paper? What is wrong with it, and what does it do right? Have you ever attempted to work for the paper, or contact the paper about a story?
E-mail me and I'll write back to you. In a few weeks, before the end of the semester, I'll write a column including your responses.
Lisa Fleisher is The Cavalier Daily's ombudsman. She can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead 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 | 4 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.
