In the article “Clery Act report shows serious crime holds steady,” Carolyn Schnackenberg and Chloe Heskett wrote about the annual security report issued last Monday by the University Police. Schnackenberg and Heskett presented statistics but included little explanation about what the statistics meant. They gave no definition for the crimes reported. Although some of the crimes might have seemed self-explanatory, they included some fairly broad categories that could have used some specificity. Further, there was at least one statistic that left me baffled: “…a dramatic increase in liquor law violation disciplinary referrals from 2010 to 2011 — going from zero to 372. Referrals in 2012 decreased slightly to 283.” An explanation about why there were zero referrals in 2010 is necessary here. Lastly, and this is an issue I wrote about previously as a suggestion, there is no link to the report online though it is noted at the end of the article that the full report is available on the University Police website.
Similarly, in Brendan Rogers’ piece “E-verify may emerge in Virginia,” there is a reference to a Richmond Times Dispatch report but no link and no other description of the report. I presume that the factual information in The Cavalier Daily article was drawn from the Times Dispatch report, but there’s no way to be sure. Further, the only person quoted in the article is someone who does nothing but hypothesize about what might happen with an e-verify system and raises possible privacy issues. Though privacy concerns are legitimate, an article that draws from another newspaper report and includes only supposition doesn’t help inform readers.
Two articles in the same week on a new restaurant on the Corner — Toro’s Tacos — is odd. The first, Tyler Gurney’s, was a restaurant review and, I thought, a helpful one. It was a look at a newly opened restaurant on the Corner that included prices and a description of the experience of eating there. The second article, by Margaret Mason, made little sense to me. The only quotations are from the restaurant owner, and the piece declares wonderful things about the restaurant without noting any specific experience there. It read like an advertisement. There’s also an unfortunate and unnecessary bit about a stereotype of a “typical cantina” that a few commenters took exception to. For a paper that wants to be of service to its readers and community, there just aren’t that many pieces in The Cavalier Daily about restaurants or other local businesses to warrant two on one place in a week, much less one that doesn’t inform the reader.
Bias
One of the reasons I highlighted the two articles about same-sex marriage in Virginia in my last column is that they demonstrated, in part, what has been called a “self-categorization explanation for the hostile media effect.” In short, when people self-select into a particular group, especially a politically partisan group in the United States, they are far more likely to perceive media reports, even those that are neutral, to be biased against their side.
This is not to suggest that there is never bias in media. There clearly is sometimes. In the case of The Cavalier Daily, though, I see efforts on the part of the news staff to remain as neutral as possible in their writing. Less-than-ideal journalism, as happens on occasion, is not in itself bias.
There is also something that is more common to student newspapers than national newspapers: covering events rather than issues. In an article about a panel at the University, a reporter may well focus on who was there and what was said. She might not include a discussion of the overarching issue addressed at the panel. A good example of this, in fact, is the news article, written by Leopold Spohngellert, on Rick Santorum’s visit to the University a couple of weeks ago.
The piece includes a description of the event, some quotations from Santorum and a quotation from the chair of the group that sponsored his visit. No opposing views were included, nor were they necessary for an effective report on the event. As I noted last week, not every report will be an investigative one and not every article requires that the reporter seek out some opposing view in an attempt to strike balance. Indeed, bias in news writing is a serious issue, but so is false equivalence. The idea that any opinion should be included in a news story, especially if that opinion is being included only because it is different than what someone else has said, is one I reject.
A last, important note: I have complete independence from the rest of The Cavalier Daily. Everything I write is my opinion alone.
Christopher Broom is The Cavalier Daily’s public editor. His columns run Mondays.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 6 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | April 15, 2024Amid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
