AS THE Cavalier Daily resumes publication in the new year, I would like to take this opportunity to review some aspects of the paper's performance from last semester. There were a few standout aspects, both good and bad.
News: First of all, there is the news coverage -- the raison d'etre for the paper itself. It is remarkably and consistently good. There is an adequate mix of national, state, university and local city news. Too often, college papers only report on the events and issues at their school. The Cavalier Daily uses wire coverage for big national stories, supplemented by good, old-fashioned local reporting. The news reporters interview local players, cover community issues and generally provide substantial reportage on important local and state issues.
The News department is not above tackling major national news as well, as evidenced by their on-the-ground coverage of the national election and the resulting chaos. Not only did The Cavalier Daily have a variety of viewpoints on the election reflected in opinion pieces, but it had initial coverage from all the key areas of the country as the election unfolded. Incredibly impressive work for an independent college paper -- undoubtedly expensive, exhausting and hard to coordinate. And completely worth it.
Sports: Every time I read the sports page, I am struck with the same thought: These folks love their job. Beat reporters usually have some affinity or expertise with the issues they cover, but you get the feeling with the sports reporters that they live and breathe their beats. Good in-depth coverage of not just the sporting events, but also the student athletes who make these events possible. With some flashy language to keep reportage lively, but without going over the top, these reporters evince their passion on the page every day, and it is a pleasure to read.
Online: The online version of the paper continues to impress. The archiving of back issues allows for easier research, particularly useful for matters of University concern which might have been covered only by The Cavalier Daily. Excellent on-line series remain worthy of notice, bringing a level of depth and a continuity which cannot be achieved in the daily newspaper.
A continuing problem: While I have praised several sections directly, my main criticism from last semester is brought under a more general heading, primarily because it involves three separate "areas" of the paper: the comics, the Opinion section and the editors. We'll walk through the issues involved.
First, the comics. Drawing a daily comic strip is an incredibly difficult creative task. Every day, you have to have something to say, and it has to be something you can say visually. This has been consistently tough for several of the comic strip artists to do -- there are missed strips, meaning frequent repeats, or strips apologizing for "no strip today."
In addition, several of the strips also seem to be engaged in competition for who can have the most pointless and offensive strip. There is a difference between edgy humor, which presses into the comfort zone of people by challenging assumptions and "sacred cows" of the culture, and offensive humor, which merely seeks shock value as its point, often by invoking stereotypes and targeting those against whom society is already biased. These offensive strips are a continuing problem, and probably the one about which the Ombudsman hears most frequently.
Also frequently problematic are Opinion pieces. The columnists for Opinion need to avoid ad hominem attacks on their subjects and get to the meat of the matter. Here's some ombudsmanly advice: Stick to reasoned argument. If you loathe a subject's morals, values or actions, say so -- but build the argument as to why they are loathsome. If you think it is bad for the country, or for the University, say how so, and then back up what you say. Otherwise, you have all the credibility of a call-in radio show crank.
I care about these two sections of the paper deeply, as they are aspects of news reporting not duplicated by television news -- pundits with 30-second sound bites are no match for an insightful op/ed piece, and, with the exception of Robert Smigel's work for "Saturday Night Live," there is no animated political cartooning. However, by consistently underperforming, these sections take themselves out of the debate -- people just stop reading them.
To some degree, the editors must share some of the blame. The editors of The Cavalier Daily are hesitant to kill a column or strip simply because it is offensive. The editors don't wish to suppress the expression of a viewpoint simply because they don't agree with it. This is an admirable position, grounded in their firm belief in free expression.
What editors do, however, is continuously make judgment calls about what should or shouldn't be in the paper, at every level -- from which stories will run, to whether to use the word "dirt" or "earth." Certainly an editor shouldn't kill a column or a strip because he or she personally disagrees with its content. Editors should, however, kill a strip or column when it doesn't meet the standards of professionalism that the paper expects, or when the material is patently offensive, such that it demeans the paper to include it.
It this a tough call? Should more than one editor be involved in these decisions? Yes, and yes again. This is what editors do -- they make tough calls, and then they take the heat. Explain the decisions to those people whose work is being pulled or rejected -- make sure everyone learns from the process. I am not suggesting that the editors take a heavy-handed, Draconian approach to the task -- if you do, your writers and artists will go do something else -- but the ultimate decisions about the face the paper presents to the community lies with the editors, and they should feel empowered to act.
(Brent Garland can be reached at ombuds@cavalerdaily.com.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
