21 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
Ombudsmen don't become ombudsmen through some sort of bizarre, archaic initiation ritual. It's not exactly a job that one just decides to do on a whim.\nI've been doing journalism for some time now, but until fall semester 2000 I didn't even know what an ombudsman is or does. The job, like any other, has its ups and downs. Getting paid to criticize others might seem attractive at first, but believe me, it's difficult work and not all that much fun, either. \nI miss the rush of reporting, editing and layout. I also miss writing columns on subjects other than the IDS, journalism in general and media ethics. Writing columns that cause a ruckus and get people talking is what really makes me wistful and nostalgic. Indeed, people familiar with my past days as a journalistic hell-raiser are usually surprised when I describe my job to them. I just tell them that solving problems is much more difficult than starting them; the former is often more rewarding, too.\nSpring break allowed me the opportunity to reflect further on from whence I'd come. Journalism can be a rocky road, fraught with the potential for spectacular failures that can match and even overshadow any number of sparkling successes. I've learned this lesson -- and others, for that matter -- well. Fortunately, I'm still relatively early along in my journalistic voyage.\nSojourning during my spring break in rural northern Indiana, I thought back to summers spent working at my hometown newspaper. One of the most important lessons I learned is this: Know Your Audience. It's an axiomatic concept that's often taken for granted by reporters and editors. The IDS has it pretty easy as far as knowing one's audience goes. Occasionally it drops the ball, but the IDS -- like all student newspapers -- has the advantage of publishing to a clearly delineated demographic. Still, knowing one's audience is important. \nMost of the time, news is news. The old school of thought says the newspaper will provide its readers with the news they "need" -- you know, politics, policy, government and all that other stuff that shows up on the front page. But recent trends in journalism have seen the rise of a new school of thought, one in which the readers' "wants" are given equal, if not greater, priority than their "needs." If you want proof, break out the microfilm and just try to find a "News You Can Use" column or section before 1970.\nToday's readers are more likely to desire practical, lifestyle-oriented news. This is just one subject of which journalists should be aware. Another one is the actual form that such content takes. This involves writing to one's audience, not for them. Journalism is first and foremost a form of communication, a medium for public discourse and information dissemination. \nI hate hearing reporters talk about how they're writing for this and that, for Truth and Justice and the People's Right to Know and other lofty, abstract concepts. I once talked that way myself, but I've learned that one should write to one's readers; doing so emulates the actual model of the communication process -- sender, receiver, channel, message and feedback. It is a two-way process, not information emissions from on-high.\nWriting for readers is somewhat paternalistic and can be, if left unchecked, insulting. I once wrote a weekly humor column for my local newspaper. One of my columns consisted of satirical observations about the 4-H Fair couched in the sociological premise of me, a 4-H "outsider" or "city boy" attending the fair and all its, ahem, splendor. Well, the 4-H Fair, where I come from, is a "sacred cow" in the most literal sense of the term (pun intended). My comments about it -- such as a facetious allegation regarding the inclusion of human flesh in lamb burgers -- amounted to heresy. Of course, my friends -- most of whom were, like me, in college at the time -- thought the column was hilarious. They still talk about it to this day -- more than two and a half years after its publication.\nUnfortunately, no one else appreciated my biting sarcasm. The community for which I was writing is traditional, rural, conservative and highly agricultural. The local economy depends upon farming. 4-H is a wildly popular program for local youth. Having lived there my entire life, I knew all of this, of course, but I was sure the community wouldn't mind me poking a little fun at its expense. \nI was wrong. They didn't get it -- the humor, that is. Angry letters to the editor came in flurries. I also wrote in the column that I didn't shower at all during 4-H Fair week because the whole fairgrounds and everyone in it smelled so bad that my odor would go unnoticed. I was obviously joking, but no one laughed. I either overestimated my ability to write convincing satire or my audience's ability to understand and appreciate it -- probably the former. I didn't know my audience. I was writing for the readers, imposing my sense of humor upon them.\nThis is just one of many small town newspaper lessons. Next week we'll get back to the IDS.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
Some troublesome journalistic issues are worth discussing in the wake of the IDS' post-spring break editions.\nOne of these is editorial sensitivity. In its March 19 edition, the IDS printed at the top of Page 1 a banner headline that read, "March Sadness." It was referring to the men's basketball team's first round exit from the NCAA tournament -- courtesy of Kent State University. Granted, that is sad, but the headline and story just happened to be printed directly above a story about an IU student, freshman Jamie Epstein, who was killed in a car accident while traveling to New York during spring break.\nLet's put things in perspective here. Basketball team loses to the Kent State Golden Flashes; season ends on sour note once again. Student killed in auto accident; a real tragedy gets overshadowed. \nA previous ombudsman column railed against the IDS bad habit of splashing sports stories and photos all over the front page's primary optical area -- the part of the front page that's above the fold of the newsprint. That's not the crux of the issue this time. The real problem is the journalistic carelessness evident in the headline, "March Sadness." Something more innocuous and accurate, such as "IU ousted by Kent State" or "First round failure," would have been more appropriate and no less effective.\nNewspaper design and layout is sometimes overlooked in the grand scheme of journalism. What looks just fine on its own, such as "March Sadness," can take on a much different meaning when placed among other news stories and photos. Indeed, the way in which a daily newspaper such as the IDS comes together as a whole is complicated and drawn out, with many different people responsible for many tasks that must be accomplished quickly and efficiently without sacrificing accuracy. And by the time the paper is "put to bed," as we in the news business say, its editors and designers are tired, burned out and ready to go home. Thus, miscues such as "March Sadness" sometimes slip by.\nBut maybe it didn't happen that way. Perhaps whomever wrote the headline and laid out the front page thought it was OK. Fine. That's a judgment call; it's what IDS editors and designers are paid to do. It doesn't pass muster, though, when one considers what the family and friends of Epstein might have thought when they saw the front page.\nWell, that's just one of the subjects worth discussing this week. The other one is the IDS editorial board's decision to write a staff editorial praising former men's basketball coach Bob Knight and wishing him luck in his new job as head coach at Texas Tech ("Good Luck, Coach Knight," March 21). \n"The time for criticizing (Knight's) actions here is over," the editorial read. "We should allow him to start with a clean slate…."\nRemember, less than a year ago the IDS editorial board invited controversy in the wake of the Neil Reed "choking" incident by publishing staff editorials that denounced Knight's boorish behavior and demanded that the volatile coach resign or be removed. Doing so probably took a considerable amount of journalistic bravado, but the editorial board was well within its rights in writing such words. \nBut some feel consistency is a more desirable trait for staff editorials. Sean Driscoll, an alumnus and former IDS opinion editor, was so incensed by this most recent staff editorial that he wrote a letter to the editor, published in the March 23 IDS. "When I was opinion editor in spring 2000, the staff took a stand and told the world it was time for Knight to leave IU," Driscoll wrote. "Shame on you, Indiana Daily Student, for taking this cowardly stance in the face of such bravery."\nIn a separate letter to the ombudsman, Driscoll was even harsher toward his former colleagues. "I understand better than anyone about how hard it is to retain institutional memory at a newspaper when your staff rolls over once every four years," he wrote. "But this is unacceptable. We took the very courageous stance when I was opinion editor of being perhaps the only paper in the nation to tell Knight to leave. We've stood our ground before. Why not now?"\nDriscoll has every right to be upset. "… The paper looks stupid," his letter to the ombudsman concluded, "and this is absolutely ridiculous." But handcuffing the current IDS editorial board to positions that were supported in the past is not the solution. \nThe paper's current set of student journalists should and do have the right to espouse whatever positions they see fit in their staff editorials. If such positions come off sounding contradictory or hypocritical, so be it. Looking stupid or brave of its own free will is much preferable to institutional establishment of positions on certain issues to which the IDS editorial board must adhere over time. \nAfter all, one cannot fault the IDS editorial board for trying to mend fences within the IU community. Indeed, wishing Knight luck and remembering the positive aspects of his tenure at IU might be just what we need right now. The past is the past. We may not be able to change it, but we can look for the good in it.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
Did you know that the United States is one of the world's leading manufacturers and exporters of torture devices? Ever heard of ECHELON, the U.S. National Security Agency's system for monitoring and tracking e-mail, telephone and telex communications?\nNo, you say? Well, there's a reason for that. It's called self-censorship.\nThe lack of news articles about ECHELON and the U.S. torture device industry is just one example of how the mainstream press fails the American people, to whom they, the purveyors of news and public affairs, are obligated and entrusted to report such matters. \nThe U.S. news media suffer from, in the words of author and journalist Danny Schechter, "a kind of group-think corporate consensus, steeped in market logic and deeply inbred in an un-brave news culture that leads to conscience-free conformity and self-censorship."\n"Group-think" and "market logic" are concepts the mainstream news media won't acknowledge. And that last one, "self-censorship," that's a dirty word in their newsrooms. Doesn't happen. Unthinkable. Unconscionable. Yeah, right.\nNoted media scholar and critic Robert W. McChesney will speak about these and other news media shortcomings 7:30-9 p.m. Monday in Ernie Pyle Hall Room 220. His talk, "The Rise and Fall of Journalism," will explore "how corporate ownership, concentration and commercialism have assisted in making journalism an anti-democratic force in American life," according to its abstract. \nMcChesney has a long and confrontational history with the news industry. A research professor at the University of Illinois, he has written books about issues such as corporate control of media and the role of the press.\nNot to degrade the likes of Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson -- two "celebrity" journalists who've recently spoken at IU -- but McChesney represents the flipside of the coin: the outsider crying in the wilderness to anyone who will listen that all is not well in America, especially its news media. Along with critics such as Ben Bagdikian, author of "The Media Monopoly," and Noam Chomsky, the mind behind the documentary film "Manufacturing Consent," McChesney embodies a sort of Socratic gadfly for the mainstream news media -- someone to poke and prod them with a sharp stick now and then. Especially when they screw up. \nStudent journalists would learn a little bit about what it's like out there in the big bad world of high-stakes journalism. Like how, for example, stories are killed, suppressed or otherwise censored by newspapers because of business interests; how the First Amendment applies only as long as it can be justified against the bottom line; and how seemingly important stories, such as the U.S. drug industry's use of low-income and homeless people as guinea pigs, never see the light of day in mainstream media outlets.\nBut McChesney's talk would also be highly beneficial for consumers of news -- the readers. In fact, anyone who has ever read a newspaper should attend. Readers might not agree with what McChesney theorizes, but they will be more aware of what the mainstream news media are trying to do. \nTerms such as agenda setting, gate keeping, synergy and reinforcement of the status quo come to mind; brainwashing, too, if you're into conspiracy theories.\nMcChesney's visit presents the IDS and its readers with an opportunity to gain insight into the news media's power structures. It probably won't be easy listening, especially for consumers of media who aren't fully aware of the rather insidious and incestuous nature of the ever-dwindling number of companies that control what we read, see and hear. Nevertheless, it's a singular opportunity to hear a notable dissident expound upon a topic you won't hear about from Dan Rather, Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw.\nIn closing, here's an excerpt from McChesney's essay, "Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy": \n"What is tragic -- or absurd -- is that the dominant perception of the 'free press' still regards the government as the sole foe of freedom … Imagine if the federal government demanded that newspaper and broadcast journalism staffs be cut in half, that foreign bureaus be closed and that news be tailored to suit the government's self-interests. There would be an outcry that would make the Alien and Seditions Acts, the Red Scares and Watergate seem like child's play. Yet when corporate America aggressively pursues the exact same policies, scarcely a murmur of dissent can be detected in the political culture."\nIntrigued? You should be.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
The opinion page of the Indiana Daily Student is no longer a legitimate forum for social and political discourse.\nIn Friday's edition, the IDS published David Horowitz's controversial advertisement that outlined his arguments against paying reparations for slavery, entitled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea -- and Racist Too."\nTo its credit, the IDS editors made the right decision in printing the ad. They thought about it long and hard; in the end, they had very good reasons for the choice they made.\nBut in the aftermath of the ad's publication, the IDS editors issued orders that forbade the newspaper's columnists from writing about the Horowitz ad controversy.\n"The columnists are not allowed to write about the ad because it affects the IDS," said Brooke Ruivivar, IDS editor in chief. "Even if they don't mention the IDS, it still reflects on the decision we made. The only person whose job it is to critique internal decisions is the ombudsman." \nIn effect, the IDS columnists have been muzzled, forbidden to write a single word about the Horowitz ad -- a legitimate topic of public debate if there was one. They are even forbidden to write about the ad as a national issue, totally outside the context of the IDS and IU.\nDave Adams, the IDS publisher, said he disagrees with this decision but respects the right of the IDS editors to keep the debate about the Horowitz ad confined to the issue of slavery reparations and not the IDS. "Normally, I believe the editorial page should operate as independently from the editor as possible," he said. "But the paper didn't write the ad. The paper is part of fostering debate on this campus."\nPublishing an ad such as Horowitz's for the sake of facilitating public debate is admirable; taking away columnists' voices is detrimental to such discourse. \n"The opinion page should debate this issue," Adams said. "I would like to see the opinion page be as robust as it can be, but many newspapers would have a real problem with their own columnists critiquing the actions of the newspaper."\nBerate or praise them as you will, but the IDS columnists serve the IU community in a very useful way by sparking debate on current events and issues. In forcing their silence on an important political issue that's also extremely relevant to higher education, the IDS is, essentially, trampling on and disrespecting the First Amendment. Although the IDS editors had the right to make such a decision, the damage done to free speech as a result is significant.\nThe seeds of this sad chapter in the history of the IDS were sown two weeks ago, when Jim Stinson, a graduate student and IDS columnist, wanted to write about the Horowitz ad and the controversy it had stirred up at universities such as Brown and the University of California at Berkeley.\nStinson saw the relevance and importance of Horowitz's ad to free speech issues. But the IDS management, which was struggling at the time with the decision of whether to publish the ad, didn't allow him to write about it because they said it concerned the IDS.\nStinson was, to put it mildly, upset with this decision. But what he didn't bargain for was the IDS management's decision to stifle discussion of the Horowitz ad even after its publication in Friday's edition. He was under the impression that the topic would be fair game after the IDS reached a decision regarding the ad. \nThis was not so; Stinson, frustrated, resigned from his position as a biweekly IDS columnist Monday afternoon.\n"I am at a loss to explain what motivates (the IDS editors) besides fear of criticism," Stinson wrote in his letter of resignation. "The Horowitz ad is worthy of commentary and debate, and it has affected other campuses, if not the nation as a whole."\nIndeed, discussion of Horowitz and his ad could easily and effectively be done outside the context of the IDS and its decision-making process. The IDS certainly seems to think so. In its Tuesday's edition, it published the first of four guest editorials on the subject of the Horowitz controversy. But it won't allow its own columnists to even broach the subject. This is hypocritical and wrong.\nAt least the IDS didn't make the mistake of printing an apology for the ad. It set forth its reasons for publishing the Horowitz ad in a memo, posted at www.idsnews.com/charter, which cites policy from the publication's charter.\nHere are some relevant excerpts from that memo:\n"The 'Reparations' ad is political speech and the opinion of Mr. Horowitz… Campus publications and the campus press are a valuable aid in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible discussion and of intellectual exploration on campus… The Indiana Daily Student is a newspaper dedicated to serve as a forum of opinion for the exchange of ideas from all its constituent groups."\nThe first part of that excerpt from the memo seems plausible. The last sentence was true until last Friday, when the IDS muzzled its columnists.\nBut that second sentence, ouch! When applied to the IDS, it's patently false. The only thing to which this student newspaper is a valuable aid is the future of complacent, corporate journalism. \nWorking for newspaper conglomerates such as Knight-Ridder and Gannett Co., young, idealistic journalists quickly learn a hard truth about the news business: put up or shut up; you just can't write about certain subjects, no matter their importance to public debate and discourse. Anything that gets in the way of business or annoys management is taboo. And that's final.\nCongratulations, IDS, you're one step ahead of your corporate brethren. \nIDS columnists: Welcome to the world of self-censorship. Enjoy your stay. You'll probably make a lot of money, but be sure to check your ideals at the door.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
Once again, the IDS management has stumbled in the wake of the publication of the controversial David Horowitz advertisement, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea -- and Racist Too."\nThe ad ran in the April 13 edition of the IDS. Since then, the IDS editors have made some seriously flawed decisions -- the worst of which forbade the paper's regular columnists from writing about the Horowitz ad -- culminating with their ill-advised decision to print an explanation of policy regarding the ad in the Friday IDS. \nWhy was this a mistake? Timing, for starters -- the IDS had already printed a two-page letter forum the day before the policy explanation ran. While many of those letters to the editor were critical of the paper's decision to print the ad, others dealt with Horowitz's arguments. The explanation ran after all of these letters.\nTo further complicate matters, the IDS had already printed, in its April 17 edition, the first of a series of guest columns criticizing the Horowitz ad. The second appeared in Friday's edition, along with the policy explanation. By publishing such a defense of its decision to print the ad in the wake of other discussion of the issue, the IDS shifted the focus of its readers' criticism from the ad itself to the paper's decision to print it. \nA second reason why printing the explanation of policy is that it was incomplete. In their chronology of the events surrounding the publication of the Horowitz ad, IDS managing editors Andy Gammill and Liz Beltramini conveniently skipped over the fact that one week before the ad ran, then-IDS columnist Jim Stinson wanted to write a column about the impact of Horowitz's arguments on higher education, particularly the implications on free speech and social discourse, which Horowitz sees as dominated by liberal ideology.\nStinson was told he couldn't write anything about Horowitz or slavery reparations, not even in the context of free speech or in regard to the controversies at schools that had already printed the ad, such as Brown University and the University of California-Berkeley. \nWhen interviewed for this ombudsman column, Stinson, who has since resigned from his position as an IDS columnist, explained his purpose for writing about Horowitz's ad.\n"I didn't plan to mention IU or the IDS at all," he said. "I wanted to mention the erosion of speech and rights and the intolerance of speech and information sharing we have seen -- from Napster to McCain-Feingold … I have followed this issue extensively, and no campus paper, even the ones that rejected the ad, tried to suppress all and any commentary about the ad and certainly not the national issue itself."\nStinson, one of the few conservative IDS columnists, said he wanted to discuss the Horowitz ad in another larger context; namely, the alleged suppression and degradation of conservative viewpoints within higher education. The fact that he is politically conservative, which is strongly reflected in his columns, made this turn of events even more puzzling and frustrating.\n"If columnists had to shut up about every political ad that may or may not run, we would all be in trouble," Stinson said. "Throw in commercial ads, and you would have no opinion page at all. The fact that (the Horowitz ad) is a conservative political ad may demonstrate a double standard. No editor would ever ask a columnist to not mention a company if there were a liberal, anti-capitalist bent to the column that may honk off the advertiser."\nA third and final reason why the policy explanation shouldn't have been written and published can be summed in one word: honesty. The IDS editors are being honest to neither themselves nor their readers. "Columnists then suggested the compromise that they would write about the national controversy surrounding the ad," Gammill and Beltramini wrote in Friday's explanation. "But by taking a stance on what other newspapers have chosen to do, they would also be commenting on our decision to run the ad in the IDS."\nIt's not clear why the IDS management is deluding itself on this issue. The views of individual columnists do not represent those of the newspaper as a whole. This point cannot be stressed enough. Staff editorials are for setting forth the paper's official stances on issues. A columnist such as Stinson could easily write about the ad's larger issues without including any sort of criticism -- implicit or explicit -- of the paper's decision-making process.\nWith that said, I'd like to cut the IDS some slack, seeing as how this is my last column as the paper's ombudsman. I've been rough on the IDS lately -- not that it didn't deserve it, in my opinion. But if there has been one redeeming quality shining through all of this uproar, it is the IDS editors' willingness to subject themselves and their decisions to my criticism, something that speaks well of them as journalists. It's been that way all semester and, indeed, all year. We've had our disagreements about the content of my columns, but never, not once, have they tried to change something without my permission. \nFinally, to the IDS readers: thanks for making my job so tough. You've been vocal and outspoken about your campus newspaper. I didn't get to tackle all of the issues you suggested, but another ombudsman will be along soon. Keep reading.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
There's a new kid on the newspaper block.\nThe Sunday Hoosier Times made its debut Jan. 7, and so far the reaction has been mixed.\nDesigned to replace the Sunday Herald-Times and provide a Sunday newspaper for Martinsville, Bloomington, Bedford and their surrounding communities -- what is commonly referred to as the Ind. 37/67 "corridor" -- this new 10-section publication is the brainchild of publisher/owner Scott Schurz, executive editor Bob Zaltsberg, managing editor Bob Hammel and general manager Mike Hefron.\n"Local, local, local" is the mantra of the new Sunday paper, Hammel said. That philosophy has guided the staff of the Hoosier Times ever since the idea for the publication was conceived more than two years ago. The result is a newspaper that serves three very distinct communities.\nNEED FOR A NEW NEWSPAPER\n"There was a pretty clear rationale for doing this," Zaltsberg said. When Schurz Communications, which also owns the Bedford Times-Mail, bought the Martinsville Reporter-Times and its associated publications three years ago, the idea of a consolidated, regional Sunday newspaper seemed feasible. A Sunday paper served neither the Times-Mail nor the Reporter-Times at the time, but Bedford readers received the Sunday Herald-Times -- a Bloomington-oriented publication. \n"The plan for the Hoosier Times was to take the Sunday Herald-Times and add a third 'branch,'" Zaltsberg said, "which would include the Reporter Times area in Martinsville and Mooresville." \nThe result is the new 10-section, three-edition Sunday paper that is trying to overcome its initial dichotomous love/hate response.\nBusiness concerns were, of course, a significant factor in the establishment of the Hoosier Times. \n"Circulation was down," Jennifer Piurek, a Hoosier Times copy editor, said, "and a bold move was needed to revive the paper."\nA fairly significant increase in circulation has occurred, up from 41,000 for the Sunday Herald-Times to about 48,000 or 49,000 for the new Hoosier Times, or "Hoot" as Piurek referred to it.\n"We're also selling a lot more single copy papers up in the Martinsville area," Zaltsberg said. "We feel it's been accepted there. What I've heard is that they really like it; they think it's their paper. And they don't have any problems with it being produced in Bloomington. I'm not sure they even know it is."\nA LEGEND SIGNS ON\nSomeone instrumental to the initial success of the new paper is Hammel, the renowned sports editor, author and Bob Knight ally who described himself as the "booster rocket" of the Sunday Hoosier Times. On the verge of retirement after more than 30 years with The Herald-Times, Hammel decided to stay on as executive editor of the Sunday Hoosier Times. \nWith numerous journalism awards to his credit and three books under his belt, why would Hammel step back into the hectic world of the newspaper? \n"Because they asked me to," he said. "This company's been very good to me."\nBut when Knight was fired as IU men's basketball coach in September 2000, Hammel knew what he had to do: help the coaching legend write and publish his memoirs. Thus, Zaltsberg took over as executive editor of the new publication and Hammel settled into the position of managing editor, a job that would allow him to work on Knight's book project and help with the creative development of the Sunday Hoosier Times.\nHammel came up with the idea for "Voices from the Corridor," a weekly feature that allows notable authors and writers living in the 37/67 corridor a chance to submit essays on a topic of their choice. \nHe lined up a corps of 13 contributors to "Voices," each of whom will produce four essays. One essay will serve as the centerpiece of the Sunday Hoosier Times local section each week. James Alexander Thom, a renowned Owen County writer, was the first voice of the corridor to be heard.\n"'Voices from the Corridor' is a good idea," said Paul Voakes, a professor of journalism at Indiana University. "I like it whenever a newspaper 'turns up the volume' of citizen voices." \nHammel expressed similar satisfaction with what he had created. \n"I'm really happy with where that's going," he said. "I told them, 'You're on your own to write whatever you want, and I'm not going to give you a topic.' One of the people I had recruited for 'Voices' said, 'That's really daunting.'"\nHammel isn't sure how long he'll be around with the Sunday Hoosier Times. In keeping with his booster rocket metaphor, he'll probably continue to provide an influx of creativity to the newspaper, and then step out of the spotlight when the time is right. \n"The whole point is that we're trying something new," he said. "At my age, that's exciting."\nQUESTIONABLE INTENTIONS\nEstablishing the Hoosier Times in the northernmost region of the corridor was a "challenge" to the influence of the Indianapolis Star, Zaltsberg said. \n"What we chose to do is go head to head with the Star in that area," he added. "We don't shy from the competition, but we do realize that the Star is a huge newspaper with a lot more resources than we have." \nZaltsberg and his colleagues felt that the Star wasn't covering local news in that area very well, so the chances for the success of the Hoosier Times -- which features three sections of specifically localized coverage -- were good.\nZaltsberg admits that the establishment of the new Sunday paper was "an economic move," but it was also an attempt to position the Schurz newspapers, "particularly on Sunday, to go into the next century."\nVoakes thinks there might be more to the Hoosier Times creators' long-term plans. Drawing on his own 15 years of experience as a newspaperman, he sees parallels between the fate that befell his former paper, the Palo Alto Times (in Palo Alto, Calif.) and the Sunday Hoosier Times.\n"It's unbelievably traumatic to see a paper disappear like that," Voakes said, referring to the 1979 decision by the Chicago Tribune Co. to consolidate the Palo Alto Times and its sister newspaper, the Redwood City (Calif.) Tribune. Those papers were merged into one daily regional newspaper -- the Peninsula Times-Tribune, which was intended to serve the Silicon Valley area of California. \n"I had a conversation with Bob Hammel about a year and a half ago and he was basically laying out the plan to launch the Hoosier Times as a regional paper for the 'corridor,'" Voakes added, "and I can't tell you the strong wave of déjà vu that I felt. It was not a good feeling."\nVoakes thinks the Hoosier Times might eventually become a seven-day a week paper that will replace the daily Herald-Times, Times-Mail and Reporter-Times. \n"Actually, you know, I like the Herald-Times and I want them to succeed … but you just can't underestimate the attachment that people feel to their community newspaper," he said. "And what we did in California was basically take it away. Saturday night you got your Palo Alto Times and then on Sunday there was no more Palo Alto Times and there was no more Redwood City Tribune. They didn't exist any more."\nGranted, nothing like what Voakes described has happened here yet, but the potential is there, given the recent trends in newspaper consolidation and looser regulations on media ownership in the wake of Telecommunications Act of 1996. Just last year the Tribune Co. and the Times Mirror Co. announced plans to merge, the result of which would create the third-largest newspaper company in the United States. \n"This is just the beginning of massive consolidation in newspapers," said William D. Singleton, president and CEO of MediaNews Group Inc., in an interview with Editor & Publisher. "You will see a lot fewer newspaper companies in five years."\nThe Herald-Times ownership might not be on the same level as the Tribune-Times Mirror Co., as it's now known, but its status as a mid-size, family-owned newspaper company makes it an ideal candidate for a lucrative merger deal with a larger newspaper chain, such as Knight-Ridder or Gannett. \n"This may make families think about unlocking the value of their company or looking for a merger partner," said Edward J. Atorino, an investment banker specializing in media securities, in an Editor & Publisher article. "Every once in a while, one of these third- (or) fourth-generation family members says, 'I want my money.'"\nBRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER\nThe Bloomington, Bedford and Martinsville communities are all very distinct, each with its own personality and culture. One would think that trying to lump them all into one demographic -- the corridor -- could be a potential failure. Not so, Zaltsberg said.\n"Corridor" is "kind of a marketing term," he said. "The fact is we're all southern Indiana Hoosiers, although there are vast differences… That's why it was so important to create a newspaper that has three strongly unique editions. It's a 10-section paper, three sections are remade between editions and those three sections are remade pretty dramatically."\nDuring the exploratory phases of the Hoosier Times development, professional and scientific research was conducted to determine what readers "wanted and what they didn't want," Zaltsberg said. "Then, after we decided to launch the project, we did some unscientific polling, and we came up with roughly 3,000 interviews of people throughout the region. It gave us some ideas. And then we did a series of focus groups."\nConcerned with how the new publication would go over in its various markets, Schurz, Zaltsberg, Hammel and Hefron proceeded cautiously. Wary that their new Sunday readers would feel that they were being invaded by Bloomington, they made an effort to cultivate "expectations" and "trust," Zaltsberg said. \nThis involved allowing the staffs of the Reporter-Times and the Times-Mail to take the lead in introducing the concept of the Sunday Hoosier Times to their readers. \n"We couldn't just say, 'OK, we're going to give you the Bloomington paper on Sunday now, and you're going to like it,'" he added. "That just wouldn't have worked."\nA NOT-SO-WARM WELCOME\nStill, the Sunday Hoosier Times has not been entirely met with open eyes, so to speak. \n"The paper has generally been received well, but with many mixed feelings," Piurek said. "People have complained that the new type is too hard to read, for one, and that they don't know where to find things. But some have complimented the increased content."\nThe localized news content could be a positive selling point for the Sunday Hoosier Times, but some readers are frustrated with its form and layout. \n"I hope we get to the point where it's fun to look at and easy to read," said Steve Snyder, the Hoosier Times art director. "I think a lot of the complaints are just because it's different. It's just something that's going to take some getting used to."\nVoakes agreed with Snyder's assessment. \n"The way of the public reaction to design is quite often a function of routine, and what they're used to - and they'll get used to this look," he said.\nThat "look" is what Snyder describes as "different from anything else in the area." He said that about a year and a half ago the art department was considering two possible design schemes for the Hoosier Times. \n"One was more of a 'hip' concept and one was more traditional," he said. "We had them both printed up and they were basically ripped to shreds! So we went back to square one." \nThe initial dissatisfaction with the two initial design concepts led Snyder and his colleagues to adopt what he calls a "neo-retro" look. "It kind of looks like a traditional newspaper where it has centered headlines, sub lead-ins to stories, and more of a vertical page layout," he added. "But we wanted to make it as open and light and airy as possible."\nThe paper might look good, but it's getting bad reviews on readability. Snyder said the Poynter Readability Series typefaces, "designed specifically for newspapers," were adopted by the Hoosier Times in an effort to make it look different from its sister publications and make it easier on the eyes. \nBut because so many readers have complained about the new typeface, both Snyder and Zaltsberg have given some thought to making a change, such as a slight increase in the size of the body copy font.\nThe new publication's leadership was prepared in the event of a not-so-stellar reception. \n"We knew the acceptance level of the paper would be a challenge," Zaltsberg said. "The first weekend that we launched the paper we got a lot of negative comments, and it really continued for a couple of weeks. And then the worm started to turn; most of the comments that I'm getting now are positive."\nThat's easy for an executive editor to say, right? Piurek concurs that the paper got off to a rocky start but is starting to shape up. \n"It seems that people are resistant to change, so initial criticism shouldn't be taken as seriously as long-term criticism," she said. "I think a lot of people are set in their ways and upset not about the actual change, but just the fact that there was one!"\nWhile Martinsville and Bedford readers might have accepted their new Sunday paper, resulting in the circulation boost cited above, Bloomington is proving to be a harder nut to crack. \n"People in Bloomington -- that's the group that had the most to lose," Zaltsberg said. "They were used to having their own paper on Sunday; it looked a particular way, and now, everything's changed. And change is difficult."\nZaltsberg likes the new paper's chances for success in Bloomington. \n"We're fighting an acceptance battle in Bloomington," he said. "I think we're going to win it, and I think we are winning it. We've lost a few subscribers, 50 or something, but it's not been a significant problem in terms of losing people."\nPROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE\nThe Sunday Hoosier Times is here. It's different. It's ambitious and grandiose in scope. No one, upon reading it for any length of time, would dispute that. But what does the future hold for this new publication? Voakes, for one, sees the Hoosier Times as the "foot in the door" for a new daily regional newspaper. \n"It's ambitious, journalistically," he said. "Obviously they've seen something in their market research. Convincing the business community of the economic unity of the corridor might make it very tempting to establish the Hoosier Times seven days a week." \nAlthough he questions the wisdom of such a possibility, Voakes admits that there are ways to accomplish it with long-term success.\n"If you sneak into somebody's house in the middle of the night and rearrange all the furniture in their living room, they're going to wake up in the morning and they will be absolutely furious," Voakes said. "But if you can somehow 'lock it all down,' the changes, a month later, will seem so natural and so familiar that they will not be able to remember what their furniture used to look like in its previous arrangement."\nIf that analogy seems a little outrageous or irrelevant, it shouldn't, Voakes said. He added that he and his colleagues at the Peninsula Times-Tribune were told by their ownership, as circulation decreased steadily in the late '80s and early '90s, "Don't worry, it's just living room furniture -they will learn to love you." \nThe Times-Tribune closed down in 1993.
(04/11/01 3:51am)
A provocative, political, full-page advertisement -- paid for, written and conceived by David Horowitz, a conservative columnist and critic -- has sparked a national controversy on, around and about our nation's college campuses in recent weeks.\nThe ad is intended to provoke the student press and academia in general by presenting a challenge to what its author considers the dominant mode of social and political discourse in higher education -- liberal ideology.\nHorowitz, who serves as president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, distributed the controversial (some say racist) ad to 69 college and university newspapers. Twenty have printed it and 36 haven't. The others are still considering it.\nThe ad, entitled "10 Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea -- And Racist Too," is intended to be an intellectual challenge to higher education and student media in the United States. Horowitz thinks academia has been stifled by political correctness run amok -- a "dictatorship of the left," in his own words during a discussion sponsored by the Chronicle of Higher Education. \nHe thinks liberal ideology has become the status quo, making any conservative thought anathema to acceptable social and political discourse. Launching such an assault on academic thought by way of the issue of slavery reparations was a bold move, bound to get attention. \nAnd it did.\nAngry readers stole thousands of copies of the Brown University Daily Herald in protest of its decision to run the ad. The Daily Californian, the University of California (Berkeley, Calif.) student newspaper, printed the Horowitz ad in its Feb. 28 edition. Chaos ensued; a front-page apology appeared in the paper the next day. Both the ad and the subsequent apology have come under fire from various sides of the debate.\nWhen Daily Californian editor in chief Daniel Hernandez was interviewed for this column, he characterized his paper's printing of the ad as a "mistake" in that the decision lacked "editorial oversight." He said the advertising section's process of flagging controversial content and alerting management about such material failed. \n"We didn't realize it was going in," Hernandez said. "The majority of us thought the ad was pretty bigoted, but we stand by our decision." \nHernandez cited many factors as reasons for a collegiate newspaper to debate publishing Horowitz's ad. "It's a matter of taste, a matter of appropriateness, a matter of values," he said. "We don't necessarily have a duty to shield the public from offensive ideas, but it's a little unfair to put this kind of pressure on collegiate journalists."\nHernandez maintains a fundamental disagreement about the nature of Horowitz's ad. "To say that this is totally a free speech issue, that's bullshit," he said. "It's paid advertising." Some collegiate editors have skirted the advertising issue altogether by encouraging Horowitz to submit his ideas and arguments in the form of an opinion or editorial column, thereby keeping the controversy strictly in the realm of intellectual debate.\nThat said, let's examine some more reasons for and against publishing Horowitz's ad and others like it.\nUnderlying this controversy is a false dichotomy about free speech and advertising. The ad's content and message is political speech -- the form of discourse most protected by the First Amendment. This is where the false dichotomy comes in. \nIt goes like this: A newspaper prints the ad in the interests of the unfettered debate of political and social ideas, despite the rancor and outrage it might provoke. Or it rejects the ad and, in doing so, invites accusations of political bias and suppression of free speech. In other words, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.\nIt's a dilemma, a no-win situation, right? Wrong. An editor may go between the horns of the dilemma by asserting the newspaper's right to set its own standards for publication and to ensure that any and all proposed advertising or other content is in accordance with such guidelines. Strict regulation of political and social speech is a road few, if any, newspapers would be willing to travel. Also, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech but doesn't require newspapers to publish everything, column or ad, that comes its way.\nAnd such regulations must be used consistently. If a newspaper publishes a political ad that denies the Holocaust, it had better be printing the Horowitz ad. To publish one and not the other would invite accusations of hypocrisy. Such criteria-based policies might solve problems in the here and now, but they're more likely to be viewed as cop-outs. And for good reason: the more speech, the better. \nIt's more important to express controversial and potentially offensive ideas than to suppress them. Stifling an opinion or viewpoint simply because it is unpopular or goes against what is socially acceptable is not a productive course of action. Ideas with merit will survive and perhaps flourish, even if at first they seem ludicrous. That's the theory, anyway.\nUltimately, the decision to publish or not to publish the Horowitz ad should and does rest solely with newspapers themselves. Public or political pressure might be intense, but it should be ignored. And then there's the money issue. Full-page advertisements usually command a hefty price. But that shouldn't factor into the equation, even if a newspaper is financially strapped. \nThe decision to publish or not to publish a controversial political ad is one of principle. No one can force a newspaper's hand in this matter, and rightfully so. Such ethical and professional tests come with the territory. They're part of the reason why journalism is the only business protected by the U.S. Constitution. \nBut the First Amendment is not something to hide behind. If a newspaper chooses to publish the Horowitz ad, it should do it and not look back -- no apologies or explanations, please, and no second-guessing.
(03/06/01 4:13am)
In its Feb. 20 issue, the IDS published a picture of an IU women's tennis player in the process of serving to her University of Iowa opponent.\nThat photo, which appeared on Page 11, was digitally altered.\nFormer IDS photo editor Matt Ooley digitally inserted a tennis ball into the photo, making it look like the tennis player was about to hit the ball when, in fact, the ball was much higher up in the air and out of the frame of the photograph.\nOoley has since resigned his position as photo editor. The IDS management printed a short correction, explanation and apology on Page 2 of the Feb. 26 issue of the IDS.\nSo what's the big deal? It's just a tennis ball, right? Granted, a rule of thumb for sports photojournalists is to get the ball in the frame -- for sports that involve the use of balls, anyway. The inclusion of the ball within the frame provides a sports photograph with a sense of self-contained unity. We, as readers, are able to see the object at which the players' or athletes' actions are directed. \nBut another rule of thumb for newspapers is to never alter or misrepresent photos in any way. This principle has become especially important now that many newspapers and newsmagazines are using digital photography instead of or in addition to traditional photojournalism methods. \nAltering photos has always been possible. Digital cameras and photo editing software have just made such alterations easier and more tempting. \nDigital photography is "the Pandora's Box of the computer age," said John Long, ethics co-chair of the National Press Photographers Association, in a 1999 speech. "All images are called into question because the computer has proved that images are malleable, changeable, fluid. Once the shutter has been tripped and the moment has been captured on film, in the context of news, we no longer have the right to change the content of the photo in any way. Any change to a news photo -- any violation of that moment -- is a lie. Big or small, any lie damages your credibility."\nOoley realized the seriousness of his mistake and made the right decision in stepping down. Such an action sends a strong message to IDS readers that the newspaper and its staff are serious about being accountable for their ethical lapses, no matter how innocuous such errors might seem.\nBut the IDS management could have handled the situation better. The correction it ran in regard to the photo was abrupt and insufficient considering the seriousness of the error. It read: "The women's tennis photo that ran in the Feb. 20 IDS was digitally altered during the editing process. This came to the IDS management staff's attention after the photo appeared in the paper. The photo editor on duty that night, Matt Ooley, has stepped down from his position. The IDS apologizes for this indiscretion."\nDigitally altering a photograph might have been a simple "indiscretion" on Ooley's part. Everyone makes and learns from mistakes; he took responsibility for his. But the IDS management's treatment of the error left much to be desired. The correction box should be used for correcting errors of fact, including but not limited to misspelled names and misidentified persons; inaccurate or incomplete figures; and other information in need of clarification or explanation.\nSerious ethical errors and lapses in judgment should be treated differently. The IDS management should not be afraid to fully and honestly own up to its faults. Doing so leads to greater responsibility and accountability. Failing to do so does an enormous disservice to readers. \nA newspaper does not exist in a vacuum. Its readers are continually judging it and evaluating its relevance to their lives. A newspaper that repeatedly ignores or downplays its own mistakes is bound to lose credibility with its readers. \nIf this ombudsman's column has served the purpose of explaining the situation, so be it. Perhaps such situations are best repaired by an apology from the ombudsman on behalf of the newspaper's management. Journalism ethics is a primary, recurring topic of this column, after all. \nBut the IDS as a whole could have handled this situation in worse ways. It could have easily done nothing about it. Ooley could have kept his job and no one would have been the wiser. Journalism ethics are not static. As the technology of journalism changes, so do the rules and guidelines under which journalists operate. \nBut certain ethical principles do and should always remain. One of these is telling the truth and representing the world of human affairs with an unflinching honesty and dedication to accuracy. Digital photography certainly introduces a new way of doing photojournalism, but it should not, under any circumstances, subvert journalists' obligation to the truth.
(02/20/01 5:03am)
There's something amiss in Ernie Pyle Hall, the building that houses both the IU School of Journalism and the offices of the IDS.\nThe relationship between these two entities is cordial, for the most part. But academic tempers tend to flare when professors or graduate students think the IDS has erred -- whether in print, behavior or policy.\n That's what happened last week, when a graduate student in the School of Journalism was told she could no longer write for the IDS because she had contributed articles to another Bloomington news medium. This student -- Durga Raghunath -- was not a regular, everyday IDS staff member but, nonetheless, she was on the newspaper's payroll. And she has written four stories this semester, in addition to seven last semester.\nAccording to the IDS code of ethics, "Staff members may string for other newspapers or wire services to get additional experience or income, unless such work conflicts with their IDS responsibilities. However, IDS staff members may not work for competing area news media, with the exception of the Associated Press …"\nThis policy, along with the rest of the code of ethics, is under consideration by a committee that has been charged to examine and, if necessary, make revisions.\nThe committee's task is a daunting one, made no less difficult because of disputes between the academic and professional schools of thought that are present -- and sometimes at odds -- in Ernie Pyle Hall. \nRaghunath wrote about science, technology and the environment for the IDS world section. The Bloomington Independent published a column by Raghunath in its Feb. 8 edition. The subject of this column was the politics and public policy of India. \nSoon after her column ran in the Independent, Raghunath said she received e-mail from the IDS that said she could no longer write for the latter publication. When she asked for an explanation, Raghunath was told she had violated the policy cited above by writing for the Independent -- a publication with which the IDS considers itself in competition.\n"I think the IDS is entertaining delusions of grandeur if they are considering themselves as competition for the Herald-Times, the Independent, etc.," Raghunath said. "They are taking things a little too far."\nIs the IDS a competitor in the local media market? Yes and no. Yes, because IDS reporters work hard to report the news that matters to their readers. They take pride in scooping newspapers such as the Herald-Times and the Independent. The IDS operates financially independent from the University, and its entire staff strives toward professionalism -- an admirable goal in and of itself. \nThe IDS is not a competitor in the local media market because of its inherent pedagogical nature. It is a working laboratory -- a proving ground, of sorts -- for student journalists. As such, it enjoys unique opportunities but is subjected to intense scrutiny. For example, the ability of the IDS to operate independent of University oversight gives it great journalistic freedom, but its sometimes-rocky relationship with the School of Journalism makes it a target for constant criticism.\n"The main issue is that there is no consistency," Elizabeth Saloom, another graduate student in the School of Journalism, said. "The IDS editors should know the policy; they should tell their writers. And the professors should know, so that they don't encourage us to write for different papers."\nSaloom has written for both the IDS and the Herald-Times. Raghunath informed the IDS of this fact when lodging her own complaints in the aftermath of her dismissal from the paper, and now both students doubt they will ever get another byline in the IDS. \nObviously, something has to give. \nFortunately, there are a few possibilities. \nThe IDS ethics committee could (and should) revise the IDS freelancing policy so that it better addresses the meaning of the term "staff member." Right now the policy's language is vague. The ethics committee should make a concerted effort to explicitly delineate the meanings of "staff member" and "freelancer." \nIDS management insists the newspaper has no freelancers. Graduate students such as Raghunath and Saloom disagree. They don't think of themselves as staff members. With clear, unambiguous definitions of "staff member" and "freelancer" on the books, someone would be right and someone would be wrong. Right now neither side is capable of winning this ideological dispute.\nAnd the IDS could make an effort to more clearly define its identity and what it wants from its reporters, editors and columnists. "I'm approaching this from the perspective of the grad students," said Dave Boeyink, a journalism professor. "They need every opportunity to get stories published, and sometimes the material they write isn't always appropriate for the same publication." \nBoeyink also said the IDS should institute a policy of "first refusal," under which the IDS would get "first crack" at graduate students' stories. "If they don't want it, then the grad student can take his or her material elsewhere," Boeyink said.\nThe paper has shown a willingness to employ graduate students and other non-undergraduates as columnists and, as evidenced above by the examples of Raghunath and Saloom, reporters. This shouldn't be discontinued, but the IDS management staff should make an effort to be more tolerant of freelancing.\nThe IDS management expressed fear that making room for freelancing would undermine the paper's "independence." This might be a legitimate worry now, but with a revised code of ethics in place that clearly defines what a "freelancer" is and is not, such fears would be unfounded. The IDS would have a solid, detailed policy on which to base its decisions, and disputes such as the one illustrated in this column would be far less common.\nIndeed, doing its part to improve the relationship between the two camps in Ernie Pyle Hall is a step in the right direction for the IDS. Its readers deserve professionalism and hard work, but its writers -- undergraduates and graduates alike -- deserve the freedom and opportunity that its unique place within the local media market affords them.
(02/13/01 3:55am)
It's not often that this column praises or defends the IDS and its staff, but, on occasion, such comment is necessary.\nThis is one of those occasions. The reason? Many readers of late have questioned the integrity and responsibility of the IDS -- especially its opinion page.\nSuch questioning is crucial, even essential, to the success or failure of the IDS. But success, in the case of a newspaper, does not mean always pleasing or satisfying readers.\nFailure, respectively, does not always mean offending, challenging and confronting readers.\nFortunately, popularity is not required of opinions. But some readers think differently.\nWhether the subject is its staff editorials, recurring columnists or choice of what letters to the editor to print, the IDS opinion page has been taking some hits lately. \n"I have come to regard the opinion page at the IDS as none other than a vehicle by which the opinion writer(s) express (their) own self-centered interests," a concerned reader wrote in an e-mail message to the ombudsman. "Put the pen in someone else's hand, and get rid of the shortsightedness prevalent among IDS opinion writers."\nA letter to the editor from Nick Gawlikowski, a senior, said the IDS opinion page printed too many letters from alumni. "Please consider curbing the publishing of alumni letters," his letter, which was published in the Feb. 8 IDS, read. "This paper is for students, not for the complaints of disgruntled alumni."\nAnother letter to the editor, also printed Feb. 8, attacked the wisdom of the writers of the IDS staff editorials. "Get off your high horse, IDS," James Poeppelman, a junior, wrote. "As far as I am concerned, most of you are a bunch of whiny yes-men and -women playing journalist in daddy's closet."\nOuch.\nIs this criticism just? Of course it is. Randy Beam, a professor in the School of Journalism, pointed that out with his own letter to the editor, a humorously subtle defense of the opinion page. Beam's letter also appeared in the Feb. 8 issue. It bore the title, "Opinion page is where student, community opinions belong."\nIt's hard to argue with that point, but we should at least make the effort. That's what opinions are for, after all.\nSo, should the IDS opinion page ditch its columnists, be more selective in what letters it prints, and knock some sense into its editorial board? Well, the answer to that depends on what the readers want to get out of the opinion page. Some of us like to be challenged and informed; some like to be entertained; and some like to see their own personal views, opinions and beliefs reflected in what gets printed.\n"We've been hearing the complaints, and we want the readers to like the opinion page," senior Kate Lewis, the assistant opinion editor, said.\nLiking, in this case, is not synonymous with agreement, nor should it be. Placing that kind of restraint upon the opinion page would dramatically reduce its relevance, rendering it virtually powerless to act as an important medium for social discourse and public affairs. \nIf you don't like the opinion page now, try taking away student journalists' freedom to voice unpopular views and see how bad it gets. We need opinions -- popular and unpopular -- to interpret the world in which we live and its events, both the extraordinary and the mundane. To go without would be, frankly, boring.\nSome readers might use the term "boring" to describe some of the columns found on the opinion page. Others might say the page and its columnists are too liberal or not representative of the IU community's diverse spectrum of views. \nContent and form are both at issue. Complaints have been made about what some of the columnists are saying as well as how they are saying it. Some find fault with the personal, slice-of-life columns that offer commentary on how to understand women; ruminate about the aging process and marriage; and serve as collections of everyday, common wisdom and sayings -- just to mention a few of the column topics in last week's issues. "Nonsense" is how one reader referred to this type of column.\nOn the other hand, issue-oriented columns are attacked for being poorly researched, uninformed and cliched. Graduate student Brian Zell, for example, took some flak last week for his column about President George W. Bush's recent decisions and policy proposals, such as school vouchers, oil drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge and the missile defense shield. \nHe's not the only columnist being criticized. One reason for this might be the fact that columnists, unlike the rest of the IDS editorial staff, often retain their positions from semester to semester and year to year. Over time, readers might get tired of certain columnists or subjects.\n"Basically, the way that we get the columnists is they are inherited down to us," Lewis said in explaining IDS policy on columnists. "Some quit and some stay on, but what we do is encourage people to submit and, if we think they're good and we have a slot open, then we offer them a position as a columnist." \nLewis admits the consistency of IDS columns varies. "We get a lot of complaints about the liberal slant, but we stand behind (our columnists) and work with them," she said. "Everybody can use improvement. We hope they stay on and continue to get better, but we welcome new columnists. We want to accommodate viewpoints and get them onto the page."\nShe also explained the process of applying for a position as a columnist. "Bring in two writing samples on any topic you want; we'll read through it and if we think it's something the opinion page could use, and if we have a free spot, then we'll offer a position on a trial basis," she said. \nAs for the rest of the IDS opinion page (staff editorials and letters to the editor), a more extensive analysis of it will have to wait.\nSuffice it to say opinions need not be popular, free of bias or even informed to be important. They should be important in their own right, and that's why we read the IDS opinion page -- like it or not.
(02/06/01 5:04am)
Latent endorsement. Implicit advertising. Subtle sponsorship. Whatever you call it, it's not good, and it doesn't belong on the front page of the IDS. \nA reader complained about the presence of the Playboy bunny logo that appeared next to a front-page story in Thursday's edition of the IDS. This particular story -- \n"Knight blasts University officials" -- discussed former basketball coach Bob Knight's recent interview with Playboy, which appeared in that publication's March issue.\nA large file photo of Knight and the Playboy bunny logo accompanied the IDS article. The logo was inserted between the story's two columns of text. Recognizable to millions of people, regardless of whether they read the magazine it represents (all of those "just for the articles" jokes aside, of course), this particular logo cries out to be noticed.\nThat's a good quality for front-page news, right? Not always. Coupled with the IDS article, which includes several excerpts from Knight's interview with Playboy, the logo comes across as an understated endorsement or promotion of the magazine. It seems to imply some sort of connection with Playboy, other than the fact that our former basketball coach was interviewed extensively for an article in that publication. \n"The graphic symbol of Playboy magazine, which is not a subject of this article, is an advertising tool," the aforementioned reader said. "It should not accompany a story -- especially not on the front page of the newspaper. The same goes for any symbol or logo associated with any other publication that Knight could have given the interview to. And that argument does not even account for the feelings that symbol arouses in some people. If it were a story in any way about Playboy magazine, this graphic would have a valid place, even on the front page. That's not the case." \nWell said, but the logo is also a waste of space. Sure, it's eye-catching, but wouldn't you rather see a scathing and incendiary Knight quote -- preferably something with a lot of curse words -- printed in bold in that space? The story itself was full of juicy remarks from the former coach on a number of topics. How about a nice mug shot of IU President Myles Brand? Then it would have looked like Knight, pictured in the file photo, was screaming and scowling at the image of the man who fired him this fall. Now that would be good newspaper design!\nLet's be clear on one point: This is not about Playboy, its content or even its image. The issue at hand is Playboy's status as a product and, subsequently, a marketer and advertiser. Freely printing a well-known, commercialized logo or symbol is acceptable under some circumstances; it happens with great frequency on the business and industry pages of major newspapers. But that's also within the context of business reporting, in which the companies or products themselves are the focus of the reporting.\nThe same cannot be said for the IDS -- in this particular instance, at least. Knight himself is the news "peg" or "angle." Playboy is a secondary element. The content of the former coach's interview is more important than the medium in which it is published. This would hold true for any other publication. Or would it?\n"Would the IDS have printed the very well-known symbol of another magazine?" the reader asked. "If Knight had spoken to Southern Partisan magazine, would the IDS have printed a confederate flag instead of the Playboy bunny? If Knight had spoken to '60 Minutes,' would its signature clock be pictured? Somehow, I doubt it."\nTo be sure, any excuse to put the Playboy logo on the front page of a newspaper would indeed be tempting. After all, the logos of Newsweek and Time just aren't sexy enough. But doing so runs the risk of mixing advertising content with news content, which is -- in the parlance of our president and vice president -- a "major league, big-time" no-no. \nThe IDS succumbed to this temptation. Hugh Hefner would be proud, so chalk one up for him and his bunnies. They managed to get some free advertising for their latest issue. \nLet's hope the IDS can keep ads out of its news from now on.
(01/30/01 4:13am)
Stop thinking about all those wonderful, clever Super Bowl XXXV commercials for a moment and pay attention. This is for your own benefit.\nIf you plopped down with your family and friends Sunday evening for the NFL's championship game, did you ever, for even the slightest amount of time, consider the possibility of not watching the Super Bowl? No, of course not.\nThat's because the Super Bowl is, like, a national holiday, right? Wrong.\n"Super Sunday" is a phony holiday, even phonier than "Sweetest Day." It's a holiday created and sustained in our collective consciousness by the news media and their partners in crime, the advertising and marketing industries. Every year, it becomes less about football and more about selling beer, potato chips, dot-com services and more. And we sit and stare, idly, as the "clever," "cute" and "creative" advertisements flicker across the screen. \nOnly during the Super Bowl do we get up to use the restroom or go to the refrigerator while the game is on so we won't miss any commercials. It's painful to admit, but there's nothing clever, cute or creative about being bought and sold as products. That's right. CBS sold the prospect of your eyeballs viewing its presentation of Super Bowl XXXV to Anheuser-Busch, PepsiCo, Frito-Lay, E-Trade and all the other corporations, who shelled out $2 million for each 30-second spot of advertising. \nThe funny thing is that CBS' competition -- and the news media as a whole -- didn't do a whole heck of a lot to discourage people from watching the Super Bowl. \nTo its credit, the IDS kept the Super Bowl hype at a reasonable level. The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, published seven Super Bowl-related stories in its Friday edition alone. Granted, the majority of these were, in keeping with the Journal's tradition, written from a business and economics perspective, but this only perpetuates the problems associated with the game's commercial aspects. \nThe stories in the Journal hyped the hype and not the game itself. They went into great detail about the lucrative sums of money being spent by advertisers, but one had to turn to the back page of the last section to find an article written about the game itself, which team would win it and why it would win. The totality of the Journal's coverage might lead one to believe the commercials are more important than the game.\nMaybe this is so. Many people probably feel that way about the Super Bowl. Perhaps they do view it as a holiday, as a celebration of capitalism or something like that. It doesn't matter who wins and loses, it's about what advertising firm comes up with the best product pitch, right? \nBut hyping the hype? Enough is enough. The media's promotion of Super Bowl commercials instead of the game itself must stop. Case in point: "The Super Bowl's Greatest Commercials," which aired Saturday on CBS. This program's content consisted of, according to CBS.com, "the most anticipated, popular and fun television commercials ever produced." This program was, of course, interrupted every so often by commercial breaks of its own, each of which probably brought in a hefty sum of money for CBS. Seems a little incestuous, don't you think? \nIt's one thing to tell us we should watch this football game; it's another, very nefarious thing to tell us we should watch this football game because of the wonderful, innovative and entertaining commercials that will appear during the broadcast.\nWe shouldn't like being bought by advertisers and sold by television networks. We shouldn't want to be bought and sold. Some of us do, and maybe that's acceptable if and only if we know what's really going on; that we aren't individuals, aren't New York Giants fans or Baltimore Ravens fans, aren't anything except consumers, an audience, a demographic, a cohort, a market, an aggregate, an age group, a socioeconomic class, a stratum and, ultimately, a pair of eyeballs and an outstretched hand clutching a credit card or a wad of cash.\nWhile I was writing this column during the weekend, the outcome of Super Bowl XXXV had yet to be decided. The ombudsman hadn't even decided if he was going to watch. (Full disclosure: The ombudsman definitely would have watched if the Miami Dolphins had played … but that's another story.) \nFor those of you who did watch the big game, please do yourselves a favor and think about those advertisements you saw with a healthy dose of skepticism. Watching commercials for entertainment or information is like asking a used car dealer for an academic lecture -- you're probably not going to get the whole truth, and you might end up buying something you don't really want or need.
(01/23/01 3:54am)
Should the columnists employed by the IDS opinion page represent both liberal and conservative views equally? \nThat is the question that was raised last week in regard to some recent columns that were printed -- and one that wasn't -- on the opinion page of this newspaper.\nIt all started with a complaint from a reader about the lack of conservative voices on the opinion page. "How about getting some writers who represent the other half of IU students?" the reader wrote, citing as examples, "those who don't believe in abortion on demand, those who support school choice for all students and their parents, those who believe they can spend their own money better than the federal government can, (and) those who don't believe Christians are 'evil, ignorant extremists,' etc."\nThis reader cited columns written by Duncan Teater (Jan. 8: "Bush cabinet an unwelcome Christmas gift"), Adam Lederer (Jan. 9: "An unlikely pair of Texas presidents") and Gabriel Lewin (Jan. 11: "What I did during winter break") as examples of liberal bias in the IDS.\nThen it was brought to the ombudsman's attention that a column written by graduate student Jim Stinson was not going to run because it wasn't timely. This interested me because Stinson happens to be one of the few conservative IDS columnists, and he usually writes about political affairs -- a touchy subject, to say the least. \nThe column Stinson intended for publication was a "political notebook" piece that provided commentary on John Ashcroft, President George W. Bush's nominee for attorney general, and also mused on the results of the national, state and local elections in November. The opinion editor thought the election content made the column not timely enough for publication.\nThe fact that these two events coincided is just that -- coincidence. But it forces us to reexamine and question the mission of the IDS opinion page. Should it cater to liberal and conservative points of view -- equally, if possible? Or should it publish whatever it thinks is most representative of its audience? \nThese are tough questions. To their credit, the IDS opinion editors have attempted to answer them. "Right now the page has a somewhat liberal bias, but only in the regular columnists," Opinion Editor Autumn Witt said last week. "Unfortunately, I can't make conservatives come write for me, and it turns out that more liberals than conservatives have applied."\nShe said she thinks the IDS staff editorials make up for this discrepancy. "That (liberal) bend is somewhat corrected in the staff editorials," Witt said. "The group which meets for editorial board is fairly balanced and the staff editorials reflect that."\nWithout a doubt, newspapers should have the freedom to establish their own editorial voices. This is usually accomplished through the use of staff editorial columns. But the columnists who fill up the rest of a newspaper's opinion page also contribute to its identity and voice in the community. \nThe history and tradition of journalism has often seen newspapers strive to establish themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" based on the audience they are trying to serve. In Chicago, for example, the Tribune is regarded as the conservative paper and the Sun-Times serves as its more liberal rival. Like politicians, newspapers have their own core audiences/constituencies.\nBut the IDS must deal with different circumstances. Its audience comprises people from a diverse academic and cultural environment. As such, the newspaper should, in the interests of serving such an audience, strive to provide diverse views and perspectives within the confines of its opinion pages.\nOf course, the fact that the ombudsman or a reader thinks the IDS should or shouldn't print something does not require it to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. vs. Tornillo (1971) said forcing a newspaper to give equal space to differing viewpoints is unconstitutional. "A responsible press," the court said in its decision, "is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues is cannot be legislated."\nSo what is the responsible thing to do in this case? The answer to that question, like so many others, is elusive. But one thing is certain: The IDS must have the freedom to decide for itself what viewpoints and perspectives will be printed on its opinion pages. \nYou, the readers, will decide whether this freedom is well used. If it is not, do not hesitate to voice your own opinions.
(01/16/01 4:05am)
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! IDS front page dominated by sports coverage once again! Disturbing trend carries over into second semester!\nYes, it's true. The IDS has been unable to kick its bad habit of giving less-than-crucial sports news prominent placement on the front page. This is a trend the ombudsman noticed last semester but said and wrote nothing about, hoping that it would not continue.\nGranted, we're less than a fortnight into the spring semester, but already the IDS has published a single issue (Monday, Jan. 8) that featured not one, but two sports stories. Both had accompanying photos in the primary optical area -- the area of the front page located above the fold. Throw in a banner headline ("Hoosiers topple No. 1 Spartans"), and you've got a pretty decent front-page package -- for the sports section, that is.\nOK, so the unranked men's basketball squad knocking off Michigan State was big news and probably deserved its place as the lead story on the front page. The ombudsman (a lifelong Hoosier, incidentally) will concede that point. But the other Jan. 8 front-page story in the POA, which detailed the women's basketball team's loss to Purdue, could have been relocated to the front page of the sports section so that a news story could be placed above the fold.\nA successful front page contains many elements. One of these is balance. The IDS has achieved balanced front-page news coverage more often than not throughout this and last semester, but there have been way too many issues in which sports stories dominated the front page POA -- 12 too many, to be exact.\nDuring the course of some quasi-scientific research performed over the weekend, the ombudsman found that 12 editions of this year's IDS -- from the very first issue up until the one you are currently reading -- featured two or more sports stories in the front page POA. This is unacceptable.\nBut that's not all. My research also found that 39 issues of the IDS featured at least one sports story on the front page of the newspaper; 19 issues featured two or more front-page sports stories; and 30 issues featured at least one sports story in the front page POA. \nThese statistics need some explanation. Keep in mind that one of the biggest sports stories in the history of IU -- the firing of former men's basketball coach Bob Knight -- occurred last semester. Naturally that was bound to cause a dramatic increase in front page sports coverage. The community interest level in the Knight controversy was extremely high, which justified such prolonged and prominent coverage.\nIn "The Art of Editing," authors Floyd K. Baskette, Jack Z. Sissors and Brian S. Brooks write, "the front page should be distinctive, with a personality of its own. Although it should serve to set the tone of the entire paper, the front page personality should be one that readers like and respect because the news on that page is the most significant in the paper."\nThe front page of the IDS should not adopt the personality of the sports page. The legitimacy or newsworthiness of sporting events or sports in general is not the issue here. In fact, as was so aptly demonstrated by the Knight controversy, sports can transcend most --if not all -- other human affairs; they can both unite and divide us as sharply and fiercely as politics or religion. \nBut after that transcendence is gone, what are we left with? Politics, government, art, religion, academics, social and cultural issues, etc.-- all of which are sometimes more mundane than basketball or football heroics, but no less important. \nYes, sports are and will continue to be important, especially in a Big Ten university community such as this. But the IDS must strive to find a balanced personality for its front page -- one that consistently speaks to all its readers and not just the sports fans.
(01/09/01 4:03am)
Seldom in life do we get a second chance to make a first impression, or so the shampoo commercial goes. \nWell, I'm going to give it my best shot.\nThe ombudsman column -- for those unfamiliar with it -- is a space for discussion and dialogue about the IDS, media ethics and journalism in general. \nSome of the topics this column dealt with last semester include the IDS sponsorship of coach Bob Knight's farewell speech; an IDS reporter receiving -- courtesy of an advertiser -- an all-expenses-paid trip to New York City; the difficulties involved in reporting a student's suicide; and the news media's highly suspect coverage of Election 2000.\nThis will be my second semester serving as this newspaper's ombudsman, and I look forward to helping you, the readers, get the most out of the IDS. \nThe newspaper itself has new leadership, with senior Brooke Ruivivar heading up the management staff as editor in chief. She and her colleagues will do their best to keep you informed with solid, dependable, objective and accurate reporting about the world around us. \nBut when they fail in this endeavor -- or when you think they have failed -- the ombudsman might be able to step in and explain or correct the situation.\nSo what exactly does the ombudsman do? First and foremost, I'm here to respond to your complaints, suggestions and comments. If you want to know why something was covered by the IDS, why it wasn't, or why its staff did what you perceive to be a less than stellar job, I am a good person to contact. Especially if you would rather not write a letter to the editor for publication.\nIndeed, some problems are resolved behind the scenes, simply via phone call or e-mail exchange. But sometimes one complaint will lead me to write an entire column about whatever ethical or journalistic principle has been called into question.\nI don't have any agenda or list of topics to write about in my column. That's why I need you to let me know what you like, what you don't like, or whatever else you might have to say about the IDS. You may do so by sending e-mail to me at idsombud@indiana.edu.\n"The ombudsman is the newspaper's hired conscience," Joann Byrd, former ombudsman for the Washington Post, said. She also describes the ombudsman as an internal critic, someone who "spends (his or her) days judging people's work and telling them they are failing the public in some … way."\nSo, the ombudsman is definitely not a cheerleader, according to Byrd's philosophy. But I tend to take the good with the bad, and hopefully more of the former, especially when the IDS does something commendable that might otherwise get overlooked.\nThe flip side of this is not fun. And it's not a good way to make friends in the newsroom. Sometimes the ombudsman has to point out the ethical lapses and bad judgment calls on the part of a newspaper's staff that might otherwise go unnoticed. But I can't and won't notice every error, so the IDS readers must be alert, vigilant and willing to speak up when the need arises.\nThe IDS is not perfect. It's run by full-time students who attend classes in addition to getting the paper out each day. It's going to contain errors and misprints. Its staff is going to make mistakes. Some of these mistakes might seem small and innocuous at first, but will be seen as much worse by readers. \nCase in point: Last semester's front-page story that incorrectly referred to the date of the Pearl Harbor attack as Dec. 7, 1947. These are the kind of simple errors that slowly erode a newspaper's credibility. They are also the kind of errors that must be avoided and eliminated. \nWith your help, the IDS can do just that. \nWithout readers, a newspaper is nothing. With readers, a newspaper is read. But with alert, vocal, and forthright readers, a newspaper can be exemplary.\nWith your help, the IDS can become that. \nThink about what you read in the IDS and don't be afraid to speak your mind --doing so will only make your campus newspaper better.
(12/05/00 4:37am)
Last week's ombudsman column articulated how important it is for reporters to be respectful of the people they write about.\nReporters don't always have to be nice; in fact, sometimes the tough stories require one to be courageous and say the things that need to be said, regardless of the consequences. Being nice and being respectful isn't the same thing, but the latter is definitely of more importance than the former.\nThat's why it's troubling to hear about the threats that have been made against IDS reporter Bryan Harris, junior, who wrote the Nov. 27 front-page story about Jason Schwab's suicide. Harris' story was unfortunately titled, "On-campus suicide a surprise to friends, family."\nThe word "surprise" was inappropriate. "Surprise" carries an almost positive connotation -- as in a "surprise" birthday party or a "pleasant surprise." While the word's denotative meaning is closer to "unexpected" or "unanticipated" -- which Schwab's suicide was -- one tends to associate words such as "shock" and "stunned" with such tragic and traumatic events. Substituting either of those would have made for a better headline.\nA more pressing matter is that of the threats made to Harris. Schwab's family is upset about the way his suicide was reported in the IDS. The administration is upset because an on-campus suicide does not make for good press. Both parties have complained to and/or made threats against Harris and the IDS. \nComplaints are acceptable. Threats are wrong. Yes, Harris' story contained details of Schwab's death that are distressing to even a casual reader; most of us can only imagine the horror with which a grieving family would react upon reading such an account. But the reporting is solid and based on the investigation of the Monroe County Coroner and the IU Police Department.\nHarris' story was respectful toward Schwab and his family. Most of it consisted of fond, wistful remarks from Schwab's parents and others who knew him. Suicide is one of the most terrible things that can happen to a family. It is not something journalists enjoy reporting and writing about. But the reporting must be done. This is probably little consolation for Schwab's family, but it is unreasonable to think such an incident would or should go unreported.\nThe toughest stories are often the ones that simply must be reported. If reporters make enemies in the process, so be it -- sometimes the reporter is to blame, and sometimes the subject is at fault. But many times no one is at fault. This is one of those times. \nA family's grief cannot be translated into words and sentences. Likewise, a reporter's words in a newspaper story cannot truly represent his or her emotional or psychological state. We are supposed to be objective in our reporting and not let our personal feelings influence what we write. Sometimes we succeed in spite of our desire to empathize.\nHarris, like all reporters, is a human being who laughs and cries. He didn't let his own feelings influence what he wrote about Schwab's death. What he wrote was not easy to read, but it was true and accurate. Now, because of a family's grief that has turned into threats and intimidation, he is having second thoughts about writing a follow up story that would investigate the University's privacy policy as it relates to suicidal students such as Schwab -- information that, if brought to light, could help prevent such tragedies.\nA family's grief -- as deep and ravaging as it might be -- should not hinder or intimidate reporters such as Harris. Schwab's family made their distress known to him through both an angry phone call and a letter to the editor, which the IDS printed Dec. 1. The latter was acceptable, and well within their rights; the former was not. \nThe mourning process is difficult for any family, and this column will probably not make it any easier for the Schwabs. But respect is something that needs to go both ways. As difficult as it is to muster when emotions are running so high, respect is, nonetheless, a quality that can both help families grieve and keep reporters diligent.
(11/28/00 5:19am)
Superman's alter ego is a "mild-mannered" reporter named Clark Kent. Clark Kent happens to be a nice guy who is a positive role model for a younger colleague (Jimmy Olsen) and wins the respect -- and love -- of his co-worker (Lois Lane). Coincidence? I think not. \nOh yeah, there's also that business about continually foiling Lex Luthor's plans for world domination, but that's not relevant to the topic of today's column. We assume that Clark Kent, in addition to being well-liked, writes good stories, but that is neither here nor there.\nYes, it's true: For the most part, reporters, like lawyers, aren't and don't have to be jerks. Contrary to popular belief, the words "sleazebag" and "snob" are not part of a reporter's job description. I'm speaking strictly from experience here.\nMy realization that reporters don't have to be jerks was reinforced while watching the original "Superman" movie a few weeks ago and, more appropriately, while working for my hometown newspaper for a few days during Thanksgiving break.\nFrom what I know of the character, Kent is probably never going to win any Pulitzer Prizes, but we reporters who don't have to worry about saving the world all the time can do great good -- through both our writing and the trusting relationships between writer and reader, and reporter and subject, that lie at the heart of every successful newspaper.\nBut what I've learned from working for my local newspaper is that being a good journalist requires more than just solid reporting and writing skills. In order to be successful, a journalist must treat others with respect. But newsrooms breed cynicism, and respect -- whether for colleagues, superiors, sources or readers -- is something often difficult to come by.\nIt's easy to get caught up in the confrontational style of journalism, wherein people are nothing more than sources to be used and then discarded when their usefulness ceases. This mindset can be useful within the world of investigative journalism, since such journalists must not be afraid to step on some toes and make personal sacrifices in their pursuit of the truth.\nBut for the everyday, run-of-the-mill beat reporter, being "mild-mannered" like Clark Kent is nothing to be ashamed of. Being respectful of and identifying with the people one is reporting on, interviewing or covering is much more useful than representing oneself as the arbiter of power in the ongoing struggle for "the people's right to know" or some other arrogant and ego-inflating delusion. I've learned this lesson well during the years, and I think it's one that reporters for newspapers such as the IDS should take to heart. \nFor example, while I was working as a reporter during Thanksgiving break, a situation arose where it became apparent that the local public library board had conducted an executive session (closed to the media and public) meeting in violation of the Indiana Open Door Law. While situations like this usually make my blood boil, a library board member freely disclosed what had taken place during the executive session after another reporter politely pointed out the Open Door Law violation to them over the phone.\nYeah, we really could have gone after the board members for meeting illegally. We could have cited Indiana statutes left, right, up and down until they disclosed the information we wanted. We even could have sued them if they had refused to cooperate with our demands. But none of that was necessary because of one short, polite phone call.\nAs purveyors of news and public opinion, journalists have great power. But as Superman (or was it Spiderman?) once said, "With great power comes great responsibility." Reporters, whether they work for the IDS, the New York Times or the Mayberry Gazette, should use their power responsibly by being respectful of sources, subjects and readers. Doing so will lead to more effective reporting, better stories and a greater sense of satisfaction for both writer and reader.
(11/14/00 4:33am)
The news media's coverage of the 2000 presidential election was and continues to be a comedy of errors and miscues.\nMSNBC's Brian Williams urged millions of Americans to wake up their children in the early morning hours of Wednesday, Nov. 8, assuring them that George W. Bush had just been elected the 43rd president of the United States. \nWe all know how that turned out.\nCBS anchor Dan Rather spewed more archaic, homespun expressions that night than Keith Jackson at a family reunion, all the while insisting that his network would not call a state for either presidential candidate until the results were more secure than Al Gore's lock box.\nCBS was one of the first networks to call Florida for Vice President Gore.\nAnd we all know how that turned out.\nOn the whole, the news media -- especially the television networks -- turned in terrible performances during what is considered the most important and sacred occasion in our democracy: Election Day.\nJournalism and politics go hand in hand, but usually the former is supposed to act as a watchdog of the latter -- not as a bumbling, hasty and inaccurate town crier.\nBut infotainment rules the airwaves, from sea to shining sea. At least the joke is not lost on Comedy Central, whose election coverage -- appropriately titled "Indecision 2000" -- was deliberately entertaining and irreverent.\nThe joke was and is on us, the audience. Williams, Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and the rest of their ilk are the jesters. "Oops, our bad," they seemed to say, collectively, after Florida went back to the "too close to call" column last Tuesday.\nWe gave them a second chance. "Yes," we said to ourselves, "herd journalism is ugly and unfortunate, and the urge to scoop the other guy is damn near irresistible. But this is the best that we have, so let's keep watching. They'll get it right next time."\nBut they didn't get it right. They got it very, very wrong. And yet we continued to watch, because it was entertaining.\nWow! The electoral process is so exciting and entertaining! Look at MSNBC's Chris Matthews barking commands at talking heads until they spout forth an appropriate sound bite! See Brian Williams wield the Telestrator pen over the Electoral College map like he was John Madden at the Super Bowl! Chuckle at Dan Rather's antiquated method of pointing at a screen with a No. 2 pencil!\nYes, the Fourth Estate has failed democracy before, and it will again, no doubt -- especially if we, the audience, fail to hold it to higher standards. \nIn the case of this particular election, there would still be plenty of angry people marching through the city streets of Florida even if the networks had been patient and not called any states based on exit polls and early returns.\nBut if the media had lived up to their time-honored mission of being safeguards against tyranny and a champion for an informed electorate, perhaps we all would have, at the very least, maintained our faith in the democratic process.\nNow that faith has been shaken. The major television networks, by calling Florida early and incorrectly, might very well have tainted this election. But we'll never know for sure.\nThe IDS, to its credit, delayed publication of its Nov. 8 front page until Gore's concession had been retracted and Bush's victory had been officially rescinded.\nBut curious voters don't call the IDS newsroom to see which candidate is ahead in what states and by how much. They watch the networks' coverage.\nABC + CBS + NBC + CNN + MSNBC = B.S.\nAnd you can take that to the bank, book it or feed it to Dan Rather's Tennessee Snapping Turtle.
(10/17/00 5:16am)
One of the dirty little secrets of journalism is reporters' and editors' enjoyment of a wide variety of "perks" provided to them by the subjects they cover.\nThese benefits include everything from complimentary compact discs and movie passes to all-expenses-paid trips to New York City -- such as the one IDS campus editor Michael Eisenstadt recently took. \nThat trip was paid for by Goldman Sachs, a New York-based global investment firm that sent recruiters to the Kelley School of Business Oct. 10. Appearing in that day's edition of the IDS was both a news article about Goldman Sachs, written by Eisenstadt, and a full-page advertisement promoting the firm's recruiting event.\nPrefacing the article was an editor's note disclosing the fact that Goldman Sachs subsidized Eisenstadt's visit to the firm's Wall Street headquarters. When I talked to Eisenstadt about his trip, he told me it lasted "barely 24 hours." He flew to New York Thursday, Oct. 5, conducted interviews and toured the firm Friday, and then flew back to Indiana that evening.\n"One helpful thing was meeting and talking to many people that I would not have gotten to interview over the phone," Eisenstadt said. "I got to see how things work there, and seeing it firsthand gave me a very good sense of the organization."\nStill, all of that just for a news story designed to call attention to an upcoming campus event? Cynical readers might conclude IDS news coverage goes only to the highest bidder. \nNews for sale? It's not that simple. \nJournalists must have some sort of financial support to engage in newsgathering and other work-related activities, whether it's a trip to a Wall Street investment firm for face-to-face interviews, or an evening at the opera for the next day's theatre review. Trust me when I saythe majority of reporters and editors do not make enough money to afford such excursions on a regular basis.\nMost of the time, a reporter's employer will pick up the tab, such as when the IDS sent two of its student journalists to Centre College in Kentucky to cover the activities surrounding the recent vice presidential debate. During my own journalistic experience, I've regularly been reimbursed for mileage, long-distance phone calls and hotel- and food-related expenses -- it's not at all unusual or uncommon.\nBut news organizations are also businesses, and as such, they can't always afford to pay for certain things associated with and often necessary to the gathering and reporting of news.\nThe IDS is no different. It relies on revenue derived from advertising sales to function, and those funds must be budgeted and dispersed accordingly. While I am merely this newspaper's ombudsman and not its business manager, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that trips to Wall Street investment firms are probably not covered by the IDS travel budget.\nEnter Goldman Sachs. The firm has recruited at IU for the past 20 years and, according to Eisenstadt's article, it employs 76 IU alumni worldwide. These alumni, in addition to being good ambassadors for IU, probably contribute healthy donations to the University. \nThis year Goldman Sachs plans to recruit students from the liberal arts and other academic backgrounds, as well those from the Kelley School of Business. So, the incentive to allow the firm to recruit on campus is significant. And thus the IDS probably felt compelled to report on this event, considering its newsworthiness, potential to affect many soon-to-be IU graduates and, lest we forget the power of the almighty dollar, the fact that Goldman Sachs took out a full-page ad in the IDS to promote its recruiting event.\nIn constructing the above analysis, I'm not being cynical, I'm just telling it as it is, so to speak. Newspapers often "reward" big advertisers with news coverage. It's a fact of life. I've seen it up close and personal. In fact, just last summer I was advised to write a feature story about a grocery store primarily because it was a frequent and loyal advertiser with the newspaper for which I was working at the time.\nAre such practices unethical? Was the IDS rewarding Goldman Sachs for spending big bucks on a full-page ad? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps such decisions are best left to the readers. \nEisenstadt's comments about his reporting reflect nothing but good intentions. "The basis or nature of the story was the fact that (Goldman Sachs was) coming here to recruit," Eisenstadt said. "We thought it was a chance to relay to students the fact that (Goldman Sachs) had opportunities for students not just from business backgrounds."\nAs for his trip to New York, I think it was, at worst, unnecessary and frivolous, but it certainly wasn't unethical.
(09/26/00 4:22am)
Today's topic is sponsorship, specifically the IDS' sponsorship of Bob Knight's farewell address Wednesday, Sept. 13 at Dunn Meadow.\nI've been hearing some grumbling and arguing in and around the School of Journalism about the ethics of a news organization, such as the IDS, sponsoring such a news-oriented event.\n I've also received feedback from IDS readers accusing the newspaper of trying to create the news instead of simply reporting the news. \nBefore I go any further, it should be noted that several other campus and community organizations helped make Knight's recent speech to the IU student body possible, so the IDS was not acting alone. These organizations included the Indiana Memorial Union, Frazier Audio, the IU Auditorium, the Society of Professional Journalists, the IU Police Department, the IU Office of Communications and Marketing, Zeta Beta Tau and the IU Student Activities Office.\nThe fact that these other groups and organizations were involved in organizing the event does not in any way diminish the seriousness of the philosophical charges brought against the IDS. Anyone who attended Knight's farewell address could clearly see the IDS logo splashed across the front of the podium from which the former coach spoke. Also, teams of IDS employees in red shirtswere scurrying around to and fro before, during and after the address.\nWatching all of this transpire from my inconspicuous (the ombudsman doesn't get to wear a red IDS shirt) location off to the side of the Dunn Meadow stage, I couldn't help but think: "Are these people in the red shirts supposed to be student journalists or event security team members? And if I bum-rush the stage, will they beat me upside the head with a camera or notebook before escorting me off the premises?"\nIndeed, one is also forced to wonder how, after more than two decades of animosity toward the student newspaper, Knight agreed to be interviewed at his home by the IDS. It was suggested by one reader that Knight and the IDS had a "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" sort of deal worked out, wherein Knight would invite an IDS reporter and photographer to his home for an interview in exchange for the newspaper's help in setting up a public event where he could say his goodbyes and take a few parting shots at the administration that fired him. \nRegardless of the veracity of this theory, the IDS just happens to be one of the most prominent campus organizations that is not financially affiliated with IU. As such, it has the freedom and independence to use its own resources in situations that many University-dependent groups cannot. Realizing this, the management staff of the IDS came to the quick but difficult decision to sponsor Knight's address. The ethics of such a decision are indeed questionable. But I think the IDS was forced to ask itself "If we don't, who will?" because the University, having immediately terminated Knight's tenure as coach, was under no obligation to provide him with a public forum.\nMedia ethics, just like its practitioners, are shifty. What is acceptable for publication or broadcast in one medium might not be so for another, and certain newsgathering techniques might be upheld as ideal or condemned as unethical. The IDS certainly flirted with the latter by sponsoring Knight's address. In doing so, it also ran the risk of public embarrassment and humiliation, as its editors were afraid that Knight, out of spite or just to play a practical joke, wouldn't even show up to the event they had organized for him. \nBut of much greater importance is the risk to the newspaper's reputation. In the minds of some readers, the integrity and credibility of the IDS have suffered because of its sponsorship of a public, newsworthy event. Yes, some damage has been done. Now, readers of the IDS might be more skeptical of what they read in the newspaper. \nOnly time will tell if the damage is permanent. In my mind and in the mind of many others, I suspect, the risk was worth it. The event went off without a hitch, and those in attendance, both supporters and critics alike, went away with a sense of closure.\nIndeed, stepping up and giving Knight the chance to finish off his memorable IU career with a speech to those who made it all possible -- students, athletes and basketball fans -- is a wrong for which the IDS can be forgiven.