Doing journalism isn’t all that hard. Doing good journalism, however, is as difficult a task as there is. I’m not trying to toot the Catalyst’s horn or make excuses but I feel as if we’ve done an all too good job lately of showing that difficulty.
Good journalism isn’t simply decent writing and critical thinking; it requires a whole host of people working in unison to the best of their abilities. If anything, good journalism is a collaborative art.
In our most recent publication, on February 25th, we published a story entitled “Student misconduct complicates Carriage House access.” The author, NAME REDACTED ONLINE, wrote a commendable story about something that actually affects our lives, I certainly had no idea about the inner workings of the place I’ve visited countless times before.
When I read the story a few hours before deadline what stuck out most to me was that a sizeable portion of the article referred to a nameless individual whose actions had resulted in very specific consequences. There was hard and irrefutable evidence that this was the case.
There is an ongoing debate in college journalism about whether or not to name students in print. The circumstances, of course, weigh heavily on any specific decision. Some papers may not name students without their consent while others take a hard-line and name almost everyone. It is important to recognize that these are both legitimate responses to a very difficult moral quandary. It is the policy of the Catalyst to weigh the situation, look to outside sources for advice and consider our readers’ right to know.
Based on the information I had at the time, I made the decision that the individual implicated in the article, Silas Scheer, should be identified and given a chance to comment. Our Features editor, Samantha LaBue, notified me that Silas had been contacted by the writer, AUTHOR, and that he had declined to comment. I asked her to follow up with Scheer to confirm and to make sure AUTHOR was comfortable with the change.
This is as far as I went in editing the article. Both Scheer and AUTHOR were unavailable and while his name was inserted into the article, no other step was taken. The simple insertion of his name was not enough. The portion of the article that named Scheer should have been rewritten, as it did not adequately contextualize the events concerning him. We should have also included the reasoning behind using his name. Perhaps most importantly, AUTHOR should have been notified before the story was printed under her name. Although not expressly provided for in her contract, she should have been entitled to a byline strike, something, I must admit, I did not know existed until earlier this week.
To be perfectly clear, the article entitled “Student misconduct complicates Carriage House access” did not include Scheer’s name when it was submitted and at no stage of the process was AUTHOR anyway involved with or have any knowledge of that fact that it was added. The article was not intended to be a personal attack, the author had no biases or ulterior motives when writing it. He/She would not have written the story, he/she says, if he/she knew that it would name names and wouldn’t have been so direct in writing the part that concerned Scheer.
Although I stand behind the decision to use Scheer’s name, the manner in which it was done was poorly executed, unprofessional and unfair. I apologize for the distraction from what was otherwise a worthwhile story.
I was made aware of this controversy Saturday afternoon when AUTHOR emailed me about it. He/She notified me that the previous night a girl came up to him/her and said “just to let you know, a lot of people hate you.” In addition, Bethany Grubbs, the Mathias RLC, had called him/her to inform him/her that a handwritten note had been found hanging in Mathias bashing him/her and that he/she should be on the lookout for more and call campus safety if he/she felt threatened. AUTHOR simply informed me, not asking for anything except for direction if there was anything he/she had to do. When I spoke to Grubbs later that day she showed me the note, which read roughly, “AUTHOR’S cuntishness is literally impacting the entire campus.” The line was inspired by a line from the article.
I am deeply saddened that this is how a CC student chose to respond. Fear and anonymous intimidation is wholly beneath us. To be quite honest, I am livid that this happened not just to a member of my staff but to a member of my community. Some may say that such things come with the territory, that journalism is a dangerous profession. I strongly disagree, we can not let dissent take this form, not now, not ever. I’m all for free speech, perhaps excessively so, but the flyer actually intimidated someone to the point they felt unsafe. I believe that this was the intention. This action goes against the values we claim to purport. Disregard “The Pathfinder,” or whatever rules we are supposed to follow, for a second and think about it for yourself. This is simply not right.
AUTHOR, who had only the best intentions, did not deserve this treatment. Yes the article should be debated civilly and in the light of day, but this reaction was simply unacceptable.
I am upset with the college’s reaction as well. There seem to be no consequences for whomever posted the flyer and although Grubbs has indicated that she is following up on who might be responsible, there seems to be little urgency or concern for the matter. Although the Deans have been made aware of it, there is no visible action outside of Mathias.
The only situation I can think to compare this too, and I apologize in advance for bringing it up, is the Monthly Bag fiasco of a few years ago. A flyer much less threatening, in my opinion, elicited a campus wide crackdown that saw the responsible parties turning themselves in within thirty minutes. In the case this past weekend, an individual student was anonymously threatened and few seemed to care.
I implore you, as a CC student, to help make sure we do not become a community in which such things are permissible. I’m not calling for a witch-hunt, I simply think we must be aware of events like this one, we can only learn from them.
The Catalyst will never be perfect; that’s a fact I’ve been made painfully aware of after my more than two years on staff. We are students with full course loads just like everyone else. However, in the cases where we do make mistakes, you can count on us to explain them and do our best not to let them happen again.
If you have thoughts on how we can better serve you, the reader, or want to join us and help us better inform the campus please don’t hesitate to get in touch. Contact info is in the staff box.
Alex Kronman 