LEAVE it to an English professor to lay the groundwork for a column topic, a topic that I have touched on before but have not given full attention: proofreading. As a recent Cavalier Daily editorial pointed out, my job is not to go over each issue with a red pen, but readers, including the professor, have e-mailed me enough examples of bad mistakes the past few weeks that I feel the subject merits examination.
The prime example is the Nov. 6 news story, "Turner explores state of African-American affairs at University." First, the word "underprivileged" was spelled incorrectly in the subheadline. Second, the reporter attempted to paraphrase Office of African-American Affairs Dean M. Rick Turner and wrote that "proper advising ... would encourage underprepared students from taking too hard of a schedule in their first year." "Discourage" is the correct word, not "encourage." You encourage someone to do something, and you discourage someone from doing it. Even if Turner misused the words, that still does not help the reporter, because the reporter did not quote directly - the paraphrased sentiment is the reporter's (and the editor's) sentence, and the responsibility falls with the newspaper.
In another paraphrase of Turner, the reporter wrote that "more black faculty and staff is needed." This is simple subject-verb agreement. It's a compound subject (faculty and staff), and needs a plural verb - in this case, "are."
On Nov. 2, a front page caption described University students as paying tribute to the "Office of African Affairs." I assume this was an attempt to refer to the previously mentioned OAAA.
In the same issue, a front page story mentioned the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate. Two pages later, a news brief described that candidate and the Libertarian candidate for lieutenant governor as "independent candidates," which is both wrong and inconsistent with the first story.
Again on Nov. 6, a front-page caption and a Life page caption mention the organization "Crusade for Christ." The name is "Campus Crusade for Christ," a well-known nationwide organization. The life story in that issue correctly stated the full name on first reference and used just "Crusade" on subsequent references, which is fine - spelling it out every time is obviously cumbersome and wasteful. But a mention on the front page is the ultimate first reference, and a full and correct reference is warranted.
In the same section, the sports story "Groh discusses lineup changes" has two mangled quotes reminiscent of the mistakes in the Turner story. The reporter quoted Groh as saying a player "did not have the exhaust of high school background." Given that Groh was describing the player's relative lack of experience, I'm betting the word was "exhaustive," not "exhaust of." The reporter also wrote that a "[A player] might as well start playing him knowing that he will see a lot of time next year." Quoting Groh, it should have read something like "[We] might as well start playing [the player]."
I focus on these mistakes because like it or not, readers remember mistakes and only mistakes. Rarely will a reader remember the consistently strong work in the Arts & Entertainment section, the high quality life series on college students and religion, or the comprehensive Election Day coverage. When reporters and editors allow a steady stream of mistakes to appear in the newspaper, readers remember, and it injures the reputation of the newspaper as a whole. When the newspaper's reputation suffers, it makes the job of the entire staff more difficult - an otherwise good reporter may have his credibility damaged by the mistakes of others.
Speaking of credibility, it is time to redirect criticism. A reader with a complaint needs to take steps to ensure the complaint is credible. I received an anonymous e-mail this week (which is possible to do through The Cavalier Daily's Web site). It complained about an opinion column entitled "Skimpy costumes reveal objectification." The reader called the column "trash," an "embarrassment" to The Cavalier Daily, and then wrote, "I guarantee you that there are thousands of other students who agree with me."
Strong words for an anonymous message. I must assume the reader was either too inept to fill in the name field, too lazy or apathetic to do so, or too gutless to put his or her name on such hyperbolic language. To make such comments anonymously is to dramatically reduce whatever value they may have. Although some opinion columns in The Cavalier Daily may not be of tremendously high value, at least they have a name attached to them.
(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.
