Subscribe | Español 中文
The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890
Opinion

Balancing concerns over coverage

PERHAPS the most frequent complaint heard by the Ombudsman is that a story's coverage wasn't "fair." Upon explanation of such complaints, typically the complaints are over two aspects of journalistic objectivity: balance of coverage and subjectivity in reporting. While both of these concerns are vital to the practice of journalism, it appears that so far this year The Cavalier Daily generally does a good job on both objectivity and balance of coverage, and there has not been a trend of problems in either area.

Often, when readers and journalists alike talk about the principles of balanced coverage and subjectivity in the media, it seems to the Ombudsman that there is some confusion about what these principles mean, what their boundaries are, and how they work in day-to-day reportage. To some degree, confusion about these principles is natural -- they are difficult and abstract concepts. However, some bounds can be articulated that will better enable journalists to improve their reporting and readers to increase their understanding of the media's duties and roles. When readers are better able to focus and articulate specific criticism, then the Ombudsman is better able to do his job in representing their concerns. Due to space considerations, today's column will focus on balance of coverage, leaving the subjective/objective topic for another day in the near future.

Balanced Coverage

Balanced coverage is a concern at every level of the newspaper, from individual stories to the larger macro-level concerns of entire paper coverage. At the individual story level, the essential goal is to ensure that all sides of an issue are fairly represented on a particular issue. While this sounds fairly straightforward, one only has to consider a few possibilities to see some of the difficulties inherent in such a goal.

For example, if a political figure comes to the University to give a speech, that is certainly news. If it is several people, and they debate, then balance may be achieved by reporting on the various viewpoints of the speakers. Where there is only a single figure speaking, balance becomes more difficult. If the speaker is a Democrat, must the reporter also give the Republican perspective? The Green perspective? Reform Party? Socialist? How far does the individual reporter have to go to achieve balance?

One way to simplify the quest for balance is to think about the paper from a macro perspective, from the viewpoint of the paper as a whole. Therefore, in the preceding example, one approach is to say: "This paper will cover all political speakers." Such a policy seeks to achieve overall balance throughout the paper and over a larger time frame by relying on speakers to come representing all viewpoints, as they likely will.

But balance at the macro level also comes with its own set of concerns. For a college paper, this concern is often exemplified by coverage of the Greek system. College newspapers (including, historically, The Cavalier Daily) often hear complaints about the level of coverage devoted to fraternities and sororities, either too much coverage, or too little. Here, balanced coverage has a different concern and different tone.

When one group receives disproportionate coverage (either too much or too little), the concern is that the paper is either appearing to overvalue or undervalue the group. As the paper has a finite amount of space, for every story that is included, other stories are excluded. The paper seeks to keep readers informed about all the happenings in the community which affect the readership, but choices must always be made. Papers should strive to reflect a balance that in turn reflects the readership's interests and concerns. As always, readers should make themselves heard on such matters. If the paper were to run 99 percent of its stories about Brown College -- of which the Ombudsman is an alumnus, back when it was Monroe Hill College -- most everyone would be able to see such coverage as overvaluing Brown College's interests and undervaluing all other groups' interests, to the detriment of the readership as a whole.

Yet, it is also a significant role of journalists to give voices to people who might otherwise not be heard. Interests with political, social or economic clout can typically make their viewpoints heard, either through advertising, or their product, or some other venue. Part of what journalists do for a free society is present viewpoints not otherwise championed by the marketplace, by corporate interests, or by the government. Achieving overall balance, therefore, cannot be simply a matter of parceling out stories by demographic profile or reader survey.

Ultimately, achieving balance in the news involves the professional judgment of the editors. Does this mean errors will be made? Of course it does. Can they be corrected through dialogue with readers, retractions, corrections and other methods? Again, typically yes. It is generally true that less people see a correction than see the original story, as corrections typically run in a small box on the editorial page. Perhaps one solution is to run corrections in a small box on the front page, the page readers say they read most. The best solution is likely one that prevents imbalances in coverage -- editors continuing to challenge their own assumptions, to listen to their readers, and keeping in mind some of the guiding principles discussed in this column.

(Brent Garland can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.)

Read More

Comments

Latest Podcast

From her love of Taylor Swift to a late-night Yik Yak post, Olivia Beam describes how Swifties at U.Va. was born. In this week's episode, Olivia details the thin line Swifties at U.Va. successfully walk to share their love of Taylor Swift while also fostering an inclusive and welcoming community.


Print Edition


Print Archive | Download Latest Edition