Pomona College's The Student Life Editorial Board recently wrote a piece entitled "COURIER Article shows unprofessionalism" that was printed in its Friday, March 13 issue. (see page 8)
The piece was in response to our article on Ken Starr's visit to Pomona College last week for a mock debate, after which he fielded questions from students and discussed his thoughts on Proposition 8.
TSL called the piece a "gross breach of journalistic ethics and reporting etiquette" because we gave little print space to the actual debate between Starr and fellow attorney Erwin Cherminsky. "A gross breach of journalist ethics," that's quite a bold statement!
While I certainly don't want to discourage aspiring journalists from voicing their opinions, a couple of things they wrote certainly deserve some attention.
First and foremost, what TSL editors may not realize is that at many professional newspapers, reporters are limited by page inches or number of words for stories they are assigned to cover. Given these limitations, reporters are forced to focus their articles on the meat of the news while cutting out as much fat as possible.
With the high profile nature of the Prop. 8 case and Starr's role as the lead attorney, clearly the presidential war powers debate was the fat. In showing up for the event, I never intended to cover the debate. I was there to report on any comments Starr might make on the landmark case and the planned protest outside.
"The COURIER implies that Starr was solely on campus to field questions about gay rights,” the TSL editorial board writes.
As printed in the COURIER article: “Mr. Starr, who serves as the Dean of Pepperdine University's Law School, was invited to speak by the Pomona Student Union. Along with Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the new Law School at University of California Irvine, the 2 deans staged a mock debate on constitutional powers of the U.S. President in a hypothetical war situation. Mr. Starr was invited to speak before becoming involved in the Prop. 8 case.”
To me, the preceding statement very clearly shows the context of Starr's comments and his reason for being on campus.
Now, here's where TSL editors get a bit out of control: "We would appreciate coverage that is not so heavily slanted."
The term "slanted" in this context is traditionally reserved for news coverage that shows a political bias, leaning either to the left or right, or taking a side on a particular issue.
The COURIER article did not take any sides on this topic. It never criticized or praised Mr. Starr for his position on Proposition 8 or his role in the case. The article simply laid out Mr. Starr’s positions on the issue, his responses to questions on the topic and provided a description of the student protest.
I'm not so sure I could say the same about the TSL's coverage of the event. In their article (see page 1 and 3), the TSL reporter interviewed or used statements from 4 different people who were directly criticizing Starr, his appearance on campus or Prop. 8 itself.
But TSL's report fails to counter these statements with a single voice of opposition, making the student paper's political leanings on Prop. 8 clear for all to see. Is this the neutral or balanced coverage that TSL editors are demanding?
Sorry if I come off defensive here, but when being accused of "a gross breach of journalism ethics," I don't take that very lightly. I've always done my best to present both sides of a story and to be accurate in my reporting.
I believe the article was both neutral and detailed in outlining Mr. Starr’s comments on Prop. 8 and his role in the case, which was my goal in attending the event. And I hardly think my decision to do so warrants accusations of bias and unprofessionalism.
I would love to hear some comments. Any TSL editors out there? Any thought from readers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
*cough* unprofessional *cough*
ReplyDeleteI remember finding the article very confusing when I first read it.
Just look at the headline: "An exercise of unity by same-sex marriage proponents." Yet the event was a debate that had nothing to do with same-sex marriage. The protesters were opportunists just there to hijack the occasion.
Maybe you don't write the headline, but it was perfectly consistent with the rest of the article. You quoted Starr's remarks about same-sex marriage at length, followed by remarks from the protesters. But what did Starr did he have to say about war powers? And why didn't you quote Chemerinsky at all?
Apparently "fat" is what actually happened and "meat" is what you want to report.
P.S. I'm a 54-year old registered Democrat and long-time Courier subscriber with no connection to the Student Life.
The Student Life has long been the least professional newspaper on Claremont's campuses. Might I direct you to a blog post on that very topic? http://www.claremontconservative.com/2009/03/tsl-has-laughable-reaction-to-claremont.html
ReplyDeleteI want to preface this comment by saying I had no part in TSL's decision to print an editorial of this nature criticizing the Courier's coverage of this event.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would like to respond to a few things you wrote criticizing TSL's coverage of this event. I feel as if in covering the event on campus TSL was clear in depicting the scene as neutrally as possible. I covered the debate, focusing on the Prop 8 controversy, just like the Courier did, using quotes from both Chemerinsky and Starr. When you say there are no quotes countering criticism toward Starr, I would like to point out that Starr himself is extensively quoted defending his position.
As for the students who were interviewed, TSL spoke with a PSU member who spoke positively abut both debaters. You are right that when it came to the protest, the quotes came from members of the QRC who put on the protest and spectators at the protest. However, the students who attended the protest were overwhelming in favor of the protest, so I wouldn't say it was unbalanced to explain the side of the majority of the crowd (I spoke with more than a few people watching the protest). Even students who attended the event without wanting to be part of the protest seemed content with the conduct of the protesters because they didn't disturb the event (see quotes from Scott Levy).
With this explanation, I feel like the TSL article did a good job of accurately reporting what was really going on both inside and outside the event. I would like to hear your opinion of the TSL news article by itself not grouped together with the editorial.
Thanks,
Jamie Goldberg
Thanks for the comments.
ReplyDeleteClaremole brings up an interesting point here. In response, I would like to point out that reporters at times are forced to pick and choose what they feel is most valuable to our readers. For example, I can't go to city council meetings and write equally about every item on the agenda, even though that's actually what happened, as claremole says. Of course, we're never going to satisfy everyone every time. What some readers find interesting, others won't. On this particular topic, with the Supreme Court case just getting underway and Starr's role in the case, I felt Starr's comments on Prop. 8 were more relevant than his comments on a fictional war scenario or Chemerinsky 's comments, as he is not involved in the case.
Jamie Goldberg was an intern of ours last year and one of the best we're ever had. We hope she will continue to write for the COURIER on occasion and have invited her to do so.
In response to her comments, I would say that overall she did an excellent job covering the event. Still in reading her report, some comments on Starr she chose to include in her report are pretty harsh. There's a fine line between explaining the side of the majority at an event, which she did thoroughly, and using their comments to bash someone and their beliefs. Did she cross that line?