TO BE SUCCESSFUL, newspapers -or any kind of media, really - need to focus on the long term. They need to connect dots, pose questions, consider connections and implications that may not be readily apparent and then explore and explain all that.
At the same time, they have to provide context. They have to explain what the information they are spewing out means - how seriously readers should take it and also why readers should care. And they have to get the little things right. It is not easy. The Cavalier Daily came up a little short on each of those assignments last week.
One story ("Mellon Foundation grant boosts humanities at University but anxieties persist," Oct. 24) looked at the effect that a $2.9 million grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation might have for the humanities at the University. It also examined attitudes about the worth of humanities programs in this tight-budgeted, job-scarce world. As the article said, "not everyone is confident about the usefulness of the humanities. Some students graduating with degrees in humanities disciplines have voiced concerns about their job prospects."
It was a good story. But I wondered if it should not have been connected to a story ("U.Va. adopts new financial model," Oct. 26) about the University's plan to switch to a new financial model. That story said, "Programs, classes and departments that give more resources back to the central body will be prioritized in fund allocation."
The article quoted Michael Strine, executive vice president and chief operating officer, saying, "The nature of the model is that revenues will flow to the activities that produce them, and they will flow back to central units that provide services based on services that they provide.
"The new model will make all, deans faculty and others, more aware of our resource allocation choices including where we choose to subsidize programs whose nature or cost structure does not permit self sustainability though they add great value."
Can "programs whose nature or cost structure does not permit self sustainability though they add great value" be translated into "humanities"? When a grant that is just a few English professors' salaries more than what Virginia Tech pays Frank Beamer to coach football is considered a big shot in the arm to all humanities - well, a humanities major might say there is room for discussion about societal priorities.
That may be a quibble, wishing that editors always kept the horizon - and some idea of what might be just beyond it - firmly in their view as they put editions of a paper together. A story ("Council recommends budget," Oct. 28) about the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia had a more concrete flaw. The article told us: "The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia suggested in an annual report this week that the government should spend $117.7 million this fiscal year on higher education institutions in Virginia.
The story had Colette Sheehy, the University's vice president for management and budget, saying in an email, "The proposals made by SCHEV would be advantageous to higher education in general and therefore to the University as well."
Sheehy also told us, "The Governor is very committed to increased funding for higher education, so I am optimistic that there will be some kind of new funding in the Governor's budget. It is unlikely that he will be able to address the full extent of SCHEV's recommendations." The story also mentioned, "The decision rests solely with the Virginia government." All that is true and interesting, even if some of it is a bit obvious, but the story left unanswered a question writers should habitually ask of their work: So what?
This is an annual report that the council has compiled. So, what is the track record? How closely have previous governors and legislators followed the council's suggestions? That might give readers a better idea of what chance the latest recommendations have of being accepted.
The next issue is really a quibble. When the University's football team upset Miami in Miami last week, the report compiled for The Cavalier Daily ("Virginia clips Miami, 28-21," Oct. 28) said Wahoo quarterback Michael Rocco "tossed two touchdown bombs, a 53-yarder to freshman wide receiver Darrius Jennings during the first quarter for a 7-0 lead and a 78-yarder to Jones during the fourth quarter for a 28-14 advantage."
The 78-yarder traveled about 10 yards through the air. The 53-yarder was a screen pass. It did not pass the line of scrimmage until Jennings carried it across. Those were touchdown passes, but they were not touchdown bombs. Bombs are heaved long distances to receivers who have streaked down the field. The 37-yard touchdown pass Perry Jones threw to Tim Smith - that was a bomb.
Tim Thornton is the ombudsman for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
