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.