Issues with The Beatles

I once read an extremely inspiring article, I think in The New York Times, about words on the “don’t use” list at publications. It made me laugh because I know that at my years at The Post, we’ve acquired many of them.

I can’t find the original article anywhere but I found one to illustrate my point. A medical journalist gives the seven words not to use in medical journalism: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope and victim. (http://www.tc.umn.edu/~schwitz/The7words.htm)

Every publication or genre of journalism has a similar list of words not to use, and The Post is no exception.

So while we opine about the merits of using the word “cunt,” or whether “fuck” can be used in a quote, there are other minor words that are definite “no’s,” yet still sneak into the newspaper. (By the way, we used “fuck” in a quote a couple weeks ago, justifying that it added something to the story to illustrate the suspended aviation student. See Aviation senior has history of allegations dating from freshman year and tell me if you agree with our decision.)

Basically, a lot of the words that make us cringe and that writers should really learn not to use are regular, run-of-the-mill words that are vague or cliché or overused or just plain spoonfed to us. Every publication has them. They aren’t in the stylebook (although maybe they should be). Last quarter I surveyed The Post editors to find out what words make them cringe. Here are a few nominations:

issues
*This is one of the those catch-all words journalists get thrown a lot. It’s vague. The funny thing is, some beats (an area of coverage an individual journalist is assigned to) have “issues” in the title, such as the “women’s issues” and “student issues” beats.

diversity
*Similar to issues, this is overused and broad. People are always trying to foster “diversity.” I love diversity, don’t get me wrong, but the word makes every Postie cringe. And if people want diversity, give us numbers and tell us what you're actually talking about.

community
*Don’t even get us started on this word. How does one become a member of the community? Is there an initiation? Tom Suddes, a journalism instructor who runs our weekly critique, instilled the belief in us that this word is the devil. It can sometimes be used correctly though when describing a genuine group of people, such as in our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender series: Finding a center: LGBT included in new “comprehensive diversity program”

The Beatles
*Really, the local band sounds like The Beatles? Good for them.

Campus Editor Rick Rouan had some fun ones that come up in campus stories a lot: “vision, residence hall, strategic plan, transparency, multicultural, realignment, implementation, community, likely, could, would, should (the previous words because they all basically say ‘who the heck knows if this is going to happen, so we're just covering our tails’), issues.”

Every editor also has their grammar quirks. Associate Editor Matt Zapotosky hates how people misuse the word “hopefully.” Brittany Kress hates the word “amongst.” (It should be among.) Culture Editor Caitlin Price has what she calls “got-it is:”

"My sophomore high school English teacher, no matter how much I despised her, got me into this mindset of hating the word ‘get.’ … It's such a weak verb — especially for journalism — and you can use so many other colorful words. For example, the simple sentence ‘I got a promotion’ could turn into ‘My boss promoted me.’ The latter sounds so much better than the former."

I hope others will comment and add to my “List of Words Not to Use at The Post.” Or make fun of how nerdy journalists really are.

Column controversy

I was waiting to cash out at CVS when an old friend from journalism class said, “So I know you probably get this a lot …” (I expected the dreaded graduation question) “... But what is up with Ashley Herzog?”

I hear it in line to get cold medicine, at the bars and instant messages from friends just to tell me that they read a column in The Post and it really ticked them off or they have their own in-depth opinion about the issue they want to rattle off over a beer.

The most exciting thing that keeps people going to The Post every day is clear lately: page two. It is the new page six. Who knows what the columnists will say next. From Ashley Herzog on Monday to Alex Jabs on Thursday, the columns have started a discourse on campus that makes even my friends read the student newspaper every day.

Monday columnist Ashley Herzog is pretty famous on campus — love her or hate her — for her Ann Coulter-like conservatism. Her recent take on gun control in response to the Virginia Tech shootings was rather controversial: The Other Side: VT massacre proves uselessness of gun control theories

The most heated response was from a letter writer last Thursday. It starts out with: “Oh, Ashley Herzog (whose name over the past two years has become synonymous to me with soulless, hell-spawned demon).” (YOURTURN: Columnist sells own agenda) Of course we considered not letting that kind of insult get in the paper, but none of the words could be consider unpublishable, and it was a rather generalized insult. What I mean by that is: The letter writer didn’t throw any specific attack on her personal life, so we didn't see a reason not to run it.

To keep the provocative columns coming, Alex Jabs, whose views could be considered to be the polar opposite of Herzog, wrote a column a couple weeks ago that has created a buzz everywhere on campus when she slammed sororities, calling them "ants" that promote bad body images. (Columnist: Not Ready to Make Nice – Sororities counteract fight for positive body image ) The column actually sparked an ad in The Post from greeks on campus defending their grade point average and also garnered more comments on our Web site than ever before and about 25 letters as of Thursday.

The comments below the article are pretty intense. So much so, that Editor Brittany Kress asked me if we should start censoring them — something we've never considered. The way the community posts work is that people can censor them themselves. Basically, readers can vote on the “quality” of the comment. If a comment gets enough negative feedback, the post will disappear. We let most of them stay, because people are entitled to their opinions, and we know that our columnists put themselves out there for criticism. But a few of us voted ourselves on some of the nasty, irrelevant comments, which are no longer on the site.

Associate Editor Matt Zapotosky, who manages the opinon page (Athens360), is pretty adamant about publishing all of the letters we get, and so he’s even held a few editorials to fit them. We’ve also been running extra letters online to accommodate the influx of letters about Herzog and Jabs.

In Jabs’ column this Thursday, she actually responds with a much more subtle tone than her first column: Not ready to make nice: Groups have responsibility to change sickening stereotypes.

Last quarter, we had another controversial column. I originally wanted to post about it, but then saved up my thoughts for a broader column about columnists. Art columnist Gina Beach (a copy editor and writer this quarter) said some controversial things about an African dance ensemble. (Column: Group turns African tradition into Western entertainment).

In the column, Gina says the Biakuye Ensemble, a group mixing American and African instruments, is a byproduct of globalization, lumping two cultures unnecessarily into one. Her descriptions of the performance she saw are pretty critical, describing the performers in a not-so-attractive light.

After discussion among the other executive editors, Gina and professors, The Post came to the conclusion that we would be willing to correct factual inaccuracies, but not take the column off of the Web site, as many have requested we do. The article is still a valid archival piece of work. As discussed in previous posts, we rarely see a reason to take something off of the Web site. It would be more of a cover up than anything. The comments serve as a good way for readers to see the dissent from Gina’s opinion. Comments have served as a good way to give readers all sides of the issues.

No matter what one argues about the merit or execution of Gina’s voice, we determined it was seemingly unmalicious in nature. The debate ended up dying down, as many things do, and letters stopped trickling in. I’m sure someone out there will remember it the next time we need an interview about African dance, however.

One thing I should explain is that the opinion of the columnists is NOT the opinion of The Post. The editorials (which run on the left side of the page) are the opinion of the executive editors (myself, Editor Brittany Kress, Associate Editor Matt Zapotosky and Assistant Managing Editor Matt Burns). The columnists, whether they also work at The Post in other venues or not, have their own opinions. They do go through some editing, but much less so than actual reported articles in the newspaper.

While the principles of journalism still apply to columnists, writing an opinion piece is completely different than an article and should be judged by different standards. The column was based on one person’s view of an event in order to express her larger opinion. Basically, columnists are entitled to their own opinion, and readers are free to agree with her. The “balance” comes from responses from readers. Columns are still held to the same standard of fairness and accuracy, however, and so if something in the column lacks fairness and accuracy, we will fix it.

As Zapotosky, The Post's new editor-elect (New editor in chief named for The Post), commented:

“One of the functions of the opinion page is to provoke dialogue and that’s exactly what these columns have done — although there’s certainly probably flaws in any column ... It’s exciting to see so many people read The Post too."

He doesn’t want them to be simply frivolous thoughts, but to provoke good discourse on campus. I think it’s doing just that, although we have to be prepared for the repercussions as well.

Are we trying just to piss people off? No. Do we get excited for angry letters? Maybe.

Conflict of interest

It was really awkward reporting on the School of Journalism last week (Money woes threaten Scripps professorship). We’ve talked about this what-if situation for many of my years at The Post, and the situation actually arose last week.

Probably the closest conflict of interest The Post ever faced was when the story broke about Larry Nighswander, a former VisCom professor. I wasn’t here yet (the staff might not believe that there was a time I didn’t work at The Post, but it’s true). Then-e
ditor Phil Elliott and others tell me the photography staff walked out. (Most recent article on the Nighswander scandal: Harassed student sues ex-viscom professor again). We are still rebuilding our standing with VisCom.

When we received news that the funding to get a visiting professor at Scripps was in jeopardy, we decided to run with it — after a lot of discourse of course. The fact that we would run the same story about any other school, the prestige of the journalism school, the value Scripps places in the position, and the recent Scripps endowment contributed to its newsworthiness.

A few stipulations myself and the other editors wanted was to make sure we were as transparent and fair as possible. The story went through a lot of editing to make sure we could check it thoroughly; we also didn’t want to overcompensate for our connection to Scripps. I also asked to add in an explanation of The Post staffer’s relationship to Scripps. Because Sean Gaffney, the reporter, used to intern with the Scripps Howard Foundation, we also decided to do an editor’s note.

It’s hard to say whether we handled it completely correctly, but I hope it was executed as fairly as possible.

Missing the big picture

OK so we pointed a gun at a Bible today.

Please see all of my previous posts about how sometimes we don’t get the larger picture, and the design is not cohesive. Our front page proved this today. (You can see the pdf by visiting today’s front page.)

The truth of the matter is, I bet there were no serial commas on the front page, but there was a Taser pointing at the Holy Bible. Sometimes editors criticize the little things more than the big things or vice versa. And this was one of those times that it went through a lot of people and wasn’t caught.

Editor Brittany Kress definitely made the right comparison: Today on the opinion page, Associate Editor Matt Zapotosky criticized the juxtaposition of an e-mail from our vice president of student affairs (Between the Lines: Mass e-mail insensitively combined student death, drink), but we had a juxtaposition in our own front-page design. This isn’t completely uncommon, as newspapers often have a hodgepodge of unrelated material lumped together on a front page.

Sorry that I sometimes only seem to post things when we are wrong, but that’s usually when things are the most interesting. Besides, weird conceptual errors aren’t able to be corrected, and so this blog is kind of good forum to talk about those weird things — doilies, guns, racial references, etcetera.

OK so if you didn’t notice, I’m sorry to call your attention to it. I don’t think The Post will burn in Hell, but we could probably be more careful next time.

Running juvenile names

I can't believe I forgot to mention the biggest thing that happened last week and over break: We decided to run the names of two juvenile defendants, which goes against our standard policy and the policy of many outlets.

To see our explanation, read Editor Brittany Kress' note. After a standard e-mail orgy among the editors, Brittany decided that the extreme nature of the case combined with the national exposure was cause to name the juvenile defendants. Some news outlets (The Plain Dealer and all other Athens local news outlets) did not run the name. Others (CNN, The Washington Post, The Columbus Dispatch) did. It was definitely a tough call.

Brittany sent this link from Poynter Online, a journalism resource center, about identifying juveniles. It has some interesting things to consider when running juvenile names. Using the amount of "exposure," as this writer suggests, was controversial to some Post editors. I tend to agree that if the case already has high exposure and a public arrest, it does make a difference to me when deciding whether to run the name, but this certainly cannot be the only factor in the decision.

Anyway, thought I'd give more food for thought.

Headlines, newsrooms and the c-word (gasp!)

In case you were dying for the next Post post, I am terribly sorry that I have been neglecting it. There’s no excuse except that I am slacking (who would have thought that running a newspaper and going to school could be time consuming?). I will definitely be better about writing these when the new Web site is unleashed in a couple weeks … and this blog will hopefully be a regular feature! Until then though, I shouldn’t leave my three Post fans hanging, so here are some highlights of the last few weeks that were exciting, at least to us:

Headlines that predict the future
In the Thursday, March 1, story Athens officer to resign amid investigation, the headline in the paper was “Athens officer to resign over investigation.” Basically, the headline was presumptuous, implying that the officer resigned because of the investigation, when it was never actually stated that he was resigning because of the investigation. But the next day it was confirmed that this was the reason. So while we were preparing to run a correction, the headline became true.

We decided not to run a correction (although some disagreed and a couple journalism professors thought we could go either way), mostly because it would just be superfluous words. Plus, we can change headlines on the Web site pretty easily, and that’s really where the archives live. I talked to several journalism professors about it, and one of them said he’d never seen anything like that happen in all his years in the newspaper business. As writer (and now Associate Editor) Matt Zapotosky said, “Copy editors are fortune tellers.”

Our new digs
We spent a lot of Winter Quarter settling into our new digs and getting irritable with each other in an enclosed area. At least if we had to spend so much time indoors with one another, we didn’t have to smell the sewer anymore. Most of the time, we have a lot of fun. Check out the newsroom, and I’ll post more pictures throughout the quarter (I have a feeling Post graduates are going to be really jealous of our new plasma TV):

A lot of people are probably wasting time in the newsroom (left). Editor Brittany Kress chats in our office (right), as our precious plants freeze in the windowsill.

The c-word
We definitely kicked off Spring Quarter last week by having one of our long budget meetings. This time we discussed whether to use the word “cunt.” A columnist wanted to call her column “Cuntservative” or something along those lines. Originally, Zapotosky had told her she couldn’t, but then he realized she was making a point with it, and so he brought it to the attention of the other editors.

As a women’s studies student, I know that the word “cunt” has a lot of controversy — for instance, some women are trying to reclaim the traditionally derogatory word. It definitely has some value in sociological discourse. But on the other hand, we realize it is an offensive word.

To keep this post from being too much of my philosophical rant about journalism (and gender representation), I will say that we decided it would be OK to use the word in this instance. The whole room of editors was pretty split, but the executive editors decided we would for the following reasons:

• It captured the tone of the column
• It wasn’t used frivolously, but rather to prove a point
• It was on the opinion page
• It was provocative and fits our college audience
• We had run it before for similar reasons: a commentary from Ashley Herzog criticizing The Vagina Monologues. (Monologues’ not true to feminisim) and in a letter rebutting it (Writer’s ‘Monologues’ appraisal misguided)

Of course the columnist decided she didn’t want to use the c-word after all. But I still decided to tell the story. I’d love to hear any thoughts about the decision, even though it was never carried through.

A few initiatives to look forward to this quarter:

• More localization: You read The Post to know what’s going on in this bubble we live in, and we want to keep it focused on the here and now.
• A new Web site to be unveiled soon: So be prepared to see some cool new features.
• Some sweet series, including profiles of “who to know in 2007-08”: If you have any ideas for graduates that are making a difference (and not just your “saving cats and trees” stuff), please let us know.

I know I’m gushing, but I can’t help it.

To call a misunderstanding a misunderstanding

In Friday’s tuition editorial (Next idea, please: Tuition hike shows the administration’s lack of ingenuity or willingness to take personal cuts), the editorial board used the phrase “It’s time to call a spade to spade.” We were later informed that “spade” can be a derogatory term for blacks.

According to Wikipedia.org, the term “spade” was used mostly in the 1970s to connote a black person. The Post had no intention of using it in this sense. Associate Editor Justin Thompson wrote the editorial using a common figure of speech, completely unaware of the racist connotation.

Although we haven’t received any official letters about the incident, I received an e-mail and also heard that students and professors have been talking about it in class.

It’s impossible for Post employees to know all of the wrong connotations of phrases, but it is embarrassing when we mess up nonetheless. If someone thought we used the phrase “spade” purposely, it would have looked appalling, particularly because it came right after we referred to our first black president, an accomplishment for which we congratulate Ohio University. It’s clear that The Post did not mean to imply any type of racial reference; we were simply using a figure of speech that is easily misconstrued. As with many other things, we will try to be more careful in the future.

The term “to call a spade a spade” reminded me of the expression “rule of thumb,” which, while common in all language, actually is a sexist expression. “Rule of thumb,” according to some scholars, was derived from a rule that men can beat their wives with a stick no larger than a thumb.

It is the responsibility of the editor to be aware of these types of expressions, and yet, mistakes are made with idioms and word choices all the time. This quarter, we have had a few problems with this in The Post (see my previous post on being politically correct).

Let’s face it: Our newsroom is mostly white kids. We lack the cultural diversity to always see the various connotations. This lack of diversity is something we hope to change on the inside of The Post, in the hopes that it will better improve our outer presentation.

Don't think pink

I suggested a moratorium on the color pink.

So maybe it is a sexy, attention-grabbing color. It is the color of my favorite drink, and I recently enjoyed a theme party based on the color. But it seems to be the only color we use when we do a story about females.

I’m referring, of course, to The Verve centerpiece on Thursday. When I opened the paper, I gasped. The label head, in bright pink curvy letters, read “Ladies stay connected.” I closed the paper in shock. I knew it was supposed to be an article about women’s groups and feminist activism on campus. And yet, what surrounded a photo of the most recent Take Back the Night March? Doilies. We might as well have put kitchen utensils or a large picture of Phyllis Schlafly. (The story is Local women’s groups band together, but the package is only visible on the pdf, which you can click on from this page.)

Of course, if the story was about a new surge in homemaking, doilies might be appropriate. But the story, written by Anna Sudar, was a feature about women’s groups, and we belittled them with stereotypes.

For last week's Friday Focus, we did a centerpiece about female rock stars (When ladies rock the house), and used a large pink guitar pick that one person told me was reminiscent of the female version phallic. It turns out, Amy Lauer, design editor, who did this design, actually only picked the pink guitar pick because it was at the right angle. Its pinkness was a coincidence.

This story (also by Sudar), although I understood some points about its stereotypical-seeming design, was still able to express a cool point. Even the word ladies (which is actually not Associated Press style at all), was something we managed to pull off. I heard good reviews from people about the story. But the repeat of the word "ladies" again last Thursday was not a good move, and definitely looked a little ignorant on our part. As both a women’s studies and journalism student, I tend to get worked up about how newspapers portray gender. This time, I found that it was a buzz with a lot of people and that most of the newsroom was turned off by the display. As one person told me, it reminded him of a Victoria’s Secret commercial (think of all of the sweatpants with “pink” written on the rear).

I can’t blame any one person for our overtones of sexism or gender stereotyping. It is just as much the fault of the editors before and after The Verve was designed as it is the designer's fault. My intention is not to scold anyone. We as editors obviously should take the most blame for not overseeing how design and writing is conceptualized together. I also know that this was a stand-in Verve that lacked planning.

Unfortunately, even large misconceptions slip through the cracks. The bottom line is, we’re students. While we’re trying to fix a comma, we might miss that fact that a package is not appropriate. Perhaps when I first started at The Post, I didn’t even have the cultural knowledge to notice a gender stereotype if it hit me in the face with an apron.

The good news: Thursday’s blunder has spawned a new iniative for diversity (we’re adopting the popular Ohio University buzz word!) at The Post. One thing that is included is trying to rid the newsroom of gender stereotypes — both in-house and on our paper. We can call it Vision Post or something.

The woes of the web

Before the days of computers, to get a Post archive, you’d probably have to dig through clips somewhere in a dusty room or on microfiche. Now – despite some glitches in our system – finding a story is as easy as typing the keyword.

Of course, people that were arrested on pretty minor marijuana charges in 1999 are not so happy with this. A Post online article might be the first hit their name gets in a Google search.

The executive editors at The Post often receive e-mails asking us to remove certain articles or names from the database.

Our initial reaction was “this is absurd!” These are our archives, and we’re not taking them down years later for you! But then we really had to powwow about what to do.

Petty crimes in college can be detrimental to a person’s family and job, as some e-mails have pointed out. And I sometimes feel sympathetic toward people who were unlucky enough to be in the news right when the news had a surge in availability.

Some people allege that the reporting was incorrect years ago. But for the most part, this should have been brought to someone’s attention years ago. We can’t make a judgment about writers long gone from The Post, and so we just trust these faceless student journalists of the past — which is kind of a scary thought. But if there really is a problem with a story that someone can prove, then of course we would consider changing a story.

From the editors
Editor Brittany Kress sought the opinion of the executive editors over the summer and we all agreed to have a policy of keeping the archives up. In the future, we’ve discussed finding ways to block names in searches. Brittany sums up our decision on the matter in an e-mail:

This is interesting because it's something journalists have probably never had to deal with before the last 10 years or so. There are a lot of ways we're setting a precedent at The Post; however, this is one of the more serious. In my opinion, we shouldn't allow our archives to get altered in any way -- unless they are factually wrong, of course. We wouldn't ever destroy a print version of an archived story, for example. The difference is that no one would have probably seen that story bound in a book on some dusty library shelf, but now it's showing up as a top search hit on Google. Nonetheless, I stand by the practice of not altering or destroying our work.

Later, she told me she decided to formulate a usual response to any further requests, which makes our policy on the matter clear.

Associate Editor Justin Thompson has interesting thoughts on the topic in an e-mail:

It's not fair to the integrity of our archives to cut or remove articles that someone suddenly is ashamed of. These papers are historical record once they're published and The Post archives are the best documented history of Ohio University and Athens. As for fairness, the angle and bias of the article is itself part of the document. For instance, the NYT [New York Times]wouldn't remove editorials condoning slavery simply because prevailing morality is at odds with that.

In one instance, someone who wrote a radical letter years ago wanted us to take down the letter, attesting that their views had changed. Culture Editor Caitlin Price shares her thoughts on this, using a famous letter writer to us in the newsroom. Said letter writer has written some fairly absurd things, which we often publish. Her e-mailed thoughts:

If he were to say, ‘Don't run that,’ or ‘Take that off your Web site,’ I'd say too bad buddy -- you knew you were writing it, you knew we could run it, and we did. If you didn't want it to run, you would have never written it.

Caitlin then mentions that as a writer, many of her stories from the beginning of her time at The Post are crappy in her opinion years later, but she would never want them to be taken down. This made me think: What if old Posties wanted stories taken down? If we take one thing down, it might turn into a snowball of requests. And somehow, knowing that our archives might not be our real archives damages our credibility as a news organization.

As journalists, the overarching thing to remember is that we must never hinder our accessibility. The interest of the public and technology will continue to be at odds, but we must always, in my opinion, error on the side of being too accessible rather than covering up public information for the privacy of a few.

Feedback

• How do you think news organizations should handle their web archives?
• What do you think of The Post's decision to not alter web archives?