So there's been a lot of talk on campus this past week about the RD who was fired August 28. I guess someone called home after the traditional initiation that the boys down in Young Hall inflict on the freshmen every year (essentially skinny-dipping in the middle of the night), and after a few days of deliberation, the administration asked the RD to leave. Apparently, this was interesting enough to merit an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune.
We discussed the coverage in my Intro to Journalism class today, and were unsatisfied all around. Why didn't the reporter talk to the RD, or students who actually go to the school, or actually outraged parents? I'm hoping The Point Weekly's version of it will be much more in-depth. I know the writers working on it were having trouble getting people to talk, which is understandable. My only part in it will be the editing, so I'm still in the dark on all the details.
I know a lot of people around here still have a lot of questions about it. Since I'm uncomfortable with pretty much any type of compulsory group activity, from school spirit rallies to team-building games, I think the fact that even I find terminating the RD probably too harsh says something about the situation, or at least how it has been handled. From the students' perspective, it looks like someone got lawsuit-happy and the administration got scared. The swimming and all that is something that is widely known to occur every year, and Young's definitely not the only hall that does it.
So what's the truth? I guess we'll have to wait for the paper to come out. It's never been more clear to me how crucial the news media is as a "fourth branch" of government, how essential a free press is to the checks and balances system. I've always taken the objectivity of journalists and the comprehensiveness of news coverage as complete givens. How much more authority could get away with if there weren't persistent, nosy people nipping at their heels and prodding them with questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hmm, if PW writers were "having trouble getting people to talk," don't you think the U-T had the same problem, except perhaps more so? She did get the one quote from the student body president.
"I've always taken the objectivity of journalists and the comprehensiveness of news coverage as complete givens."
I thought the last few weeks of the presidential campaign had disabused most everyone of any oddly lingering belief in journalistic objectivity. On the whole, the last paragraph reads a bit, um, optimistic. I hope pure, objective truth is reported, but I stopped expecting it long ago. "Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists." - Mailer
I've always been suspicious of news articles and their (un)trustworthiness. There's no reason why they should suddenly be given the "oh! look! we're media. trust us." treatment, because they're just as susceptible to spinning stories as anyone (evening news comes to mind).
You can get all the facts right, but still tell a different story. On any given day, pull out the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal and read the complete first section. They have the same stories, but the differences in presentation tilt them to their own particular bias.
Or even the entire Western news media is biased to our perspective towards the rest of the world. (Russia and Georgia, etc. etc.)
I understand what you both are saying, and I probably should have qualified my effusiveness. What I mean to point out is that journalism plays an incredibly important role, and, with all its flaws, our society would be infinitely worse off without a free press.
I don't mean to say that our media is purely objective and comprehensive, just that I'd grown up with the conception that this was so, entirely unaware of the constant uphill battle that journalists have to fight. But compared to just about every other press in every other country that has ever existed, our objectivity and comprehensiveness is remarkable.
As for the article in question, the reporter could have at least talked to a current student, instead of people whose jobs are contingent on how well they portray the school!
hey can you link me from your page?
I have no idea how to, and if you have time you could go on my name and link yourself to my page!
Doesn't that sound exciting?
Okay, well I love you my dear!
Bye:)
Certainly true that our free press is an accomplishment unmatched in the world, although I wonder if objectivity can ever really exist.
So was that a former student body president she quoted then?
Complete objectivity can never exist, and that's definitely something we've been talking about in my intro class. Deciding what material to use, what angle to take, who to quote, all requires a measure of judgment. Understanding this process, and what it takes to get a few lines of mostly accurate newsprint, is what made me so enthusiastic in the first place, especially in light of these events.
He is our current student body president, but, like my professor made sure to point out, he has good reason to speak in careful and diplomatic terms. It's just very unbalanced. The article mentions many outraged people; why couldn't the reporter quote a single one?
Interesting thoughts.
Couldn't help but to comment on a couple of them.
I'm not sure that there is even enough validation in having interviewed one "outraged" student because I don't think "outrage" is the only emotion that could adequately cover most of the students' perceptions on campus. Are most outraged by the firing that resulted? Sure. Are enough outraged about the actions of a few with limited judgment having such detrimental effects on a community at large? I don't think so.
I don't know if a job like mine is contigent upon how well I portray the school. I've had enough opportunity as of late to share some pretty grave concerns that are on the surface regarding several matters on our campus. In fact, all too often, yours truly is told to be "more patient" because of a desire for such sweeping change. Nonetheless, there is no holding back what I see is an obligation to speak to issues that face our campus both now and adversely in the future.
Obviously again, the actions of a few gave opportunity to much of our local area and the more and more I hear from folks--friends and family across the country--to get a pretty uncommonly painted picture of our campus life. This indeed was an unfortunate incident. It was something that was innocent in years past that was taken by a few to beyond a reasonable level of "boys being boys" and having "fun." With this, we have an even larger conversation to begin on our campus as we consider all the life histories, stories and perspectives that students and staff alike bring with them when they join our Point Loma community. While we can value these stories and perspectives, we've done damage to a several because of this incident. I really hope that this can be an opportunity for growth as we realize our greatest need which is to become a community of love.
I know what you mean, Andrew. You've been put in a terrible position in this whole situation. But the student body still does not have a substantial answer as to why he was fired, and all this does is create confusion, uncertainty, and vague mistrust. What it looks like to us goes something like, "You may say you love us, but if we upset the wrong person, all of the affection, history, mercy, and compassion goes out the window, along with us."
We just need more clarity regarding the reasoning behind his termination. The secrecy creates an incredible sense of insecurity.
What I'm personally confused about is why there has been limited to no attention or discussion about the freshmen students who participated in the NOSing "tradition" who have come from some pretty troubled family lives and histories.
While I too have questioned the termination, I am baffled that there is very little discussion about how we have caused numerous students to leave our university as well as incite some fear and concern in the lives of these new students.
Just something to consider.
--a
I think the reason we're not talking about that is because we have no idea. Discussion about the people you've mentioned is exactly what I was hoping would happen. My initial reaction was to sympathize with the displaced RD and his family, because from my vantage point, no one else was adversely affected. If students have been traumatized or left the school over this, however, that surely changes things. What we need is less shrouded mystery and more open, honest communication. You're exactly right—these voices need to be heard.
Post a Comment