FOR AT least seven months, The Cavalier Daily has been covering the complex issue of the University's ownership of Unocal stock, Unocal's activities in Burma and the conduct of Burma's government. The University aspect of the controversy came to a head when it chose to sell its Unocal stock, as reported in the Oct. 18 issue of The Cavalier Daily ("University sells stock in Unocal company").
I received a complaint this week from an officer of the Virginia Free Burma Coalition. He especially was concerned with an Oct. 3 story in The Cavalier Daily, "Unocal denies misdeeds in Burma."
The story featured quotes from a Unocal spokesman, and the spokesman predictably refuted the assertion that Unocal was doing anything wrong. The reader felt that the reporter had allowed himself to be "spun" by the spokesman and maintained that he could tell from the spokesman's quotes that the reporter had not asked specific questions and had failed to pin the spokesman down.
I exchanged e-mails with The Cavalier Daily's editor-in-chief and the two reporters who wrote the Oct. 3 story. On the issue of the questioning of the Unocal representative, one reporter wrote that he did ask specific questions pertaining to the coalition's five main charges, and the spokesman "flat out denied each of them."
This should not come as a surprise. If a reporter asks A, B and C, any good spokesman will either deny A, B and C, or instead will duck the questions and reply with D, E and F, which may or may not have anything to do with the questions. It is the spokesman's job to spin things in the most positive light for his company.
The Cavalier Daily's job, on the other hand, is to provide a balanced view of the issue. Since March, at least eight news stories, two editorials and three opinion columns have addressed the subject of the University, Unocal and Burma. Exactly one story featured any quotes from Unocal personnel - the Oct. 3 story that I received a complaint about. Most of the other stories featured quotes only from 1) students sympathetic to the coalition's cause, or coalition members themselves, and 2) University officials and Board of Visitors members.
The Oct. 3 story probably was the best and most complete story of all the coverage of the issue done by The Cavalier Daily. In fact, the section of the story entitled "The other side of the issue," which is the longest section in the article, did a good job summarizing the arguments against Unocal and featured one Unocal quote denying those arguments.
Before this story, The Cavalier Daily's coverage was one-sided - in favor of the coalition. After looking at all the coverage, and especially the Oct. 3 story, I think any argument that The Cavalier Daily allowed itself to be spun by anyone from Unocal is doomed to fail.
The coalition officer also complained about a reporter's manner of questioning when talking to the head of the coalition. The crux of the complaint was that the reporter was confrontational and rude, challenging the coalition president with some statements from Unocal. The reporter told me that he was confrontational "in that both individuals [Unocal and the coalition] were put on the spot and asked to defend their opposing viewpoint." That is simply basic, solid journalism.
Sometimes subjects of stories, especially when they have received favorable coverage, start to consider a newspaper as "friendly" and react negatively when that newspaper pursues something that may not be as favorable. At one point, the Student Council president went to The Cavalier Daily office, presumably to help make sure the reporters had their facts straight, but one of the reporters told me the president was unwilling to allow opposing viewpoints to appear in the article. Who was doing the spinning there? Running quotes from the two sides and allowing each to say its piece is not a case of the paper allowing itself to be spun - it is a case of putting both sides out there so the readers can form their own opinions.
There also was a question of the quote accuracy in the Oct. 18 story, "University sells stock in Unocal company." One quote sounds strange - "It's a victory because they didn't just divest because the money manager took into account Unocal's actions and our efforts." The reporter told me that it was an editing mistake and a word was left out - presumably something like "but" after "divest." It was a fairly minor mistake, but sometimes one word can make a huge difference.
But the main issue here is the fairness and completeness of The Cavalier Daily's coverage. Newspapers are not passive conduits designed to allow organizations to promote their agendas while insisting nothing contrary to that agenda appears in the newspaper. By printing its Oct. 3 story, The Cavalier Daily was presenting the other side - in other words, just doing its job.
(Matthew Branson can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 4 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
