In most newsrooms, suicide is not news. Unless the suicide is a public figure or the act occurs in public, it is simply not something newspapers routinely cover. When Kevin Morrissey, managing editor of the Virginia Quarterly Review, shot himself at an old coaling tower, it was news. ABC News, The Washington Post and The Chronicle of Higher Education were among those who reported on Morrissey's death, the management style of VQR editor Ted Genoways and the University's response to the tragedy.
When the University released a report on the VQR, The Cavalier Daily published a story about it ("Investigation finds flaws in VQR management style," Oct. 22) that quoted from the report, from Genoways' lawyer and from a University spokeswoman. There was nothing from the people who have been blaming Genoways' treatment of Morrissey for driving Morrissey to take his own life. Some Internet readers labeled the story propaganda because of that. They held up The HooK's coverage as an exemplar.
I would not go that far, but it did seem curious to me that no one outside the circle of official responses - except for Genoways' lawyer - was quoted. Cavalier Daily Editor-in-Chief Ross Lawrence generally left the explanation to Managing Editor Irene Kan, but said, "We've contacted VQR people in the past, and they generally don't respond or wish not to speak on the record about this matter," in an e-mail.
That is not a good reason to stop contacting people. They may change their minds.
I can understand the reluctance to introduce comments from people who had not seen the report, but according to a Washington Post story, University President Teresa A. Sullivan met with Genoways and two other VQR employees to let them know the results of the investigation. Maybe those employees would have commented on what they were told if they had been given the chance.
Lawrence seems rightfully determined that The Cavalier Daily's coverage of such a sensitive and tragic story avoid sensationalism. Clearly, The HooK - which relied heavily on anonymous sources, made several errors, included some questionable judgments and failed to reveal its reporter's personal connection to the VQR - was not a paragon of journalism in this instance. As Kan pointed out, The Washington Post's report on the subject did not include quotes from Genoways' accusers. If an editor must choose between The Washington Post and The HooK as a model in these things, Kan made the right choice.
Kan said she understands the criticism and concedes that perhaps The Cavalier Daily should have been more skeptical. But this story was meant to be a report on the audit, she said - not an investigative piece. "The audit looked at VQR's financial and managerial operations for a month based on records, e-mails and interviews," she emailed. "At most, we might have been able to get in contact with one or two people who had complaints, but I don't feel as if this actually balances the issue. Rather, it seems almost like sensationalizing the complaints that were deemed to be without substance."
Kan's instinct is good, but the execution seems off. Besides, the report does not conclude the complaints were "without substance." As the Post story said, "The audit doesn't settle the issue, stating enigmatically: 'It is sometimes difficult to define where the line gets crossed between a tough manager and an unreasonable one.'"\nGenoways' detractors and VQR employees should have been asked if the report mollified any of their concerns. It seems that The Cavalier Daily assumed how those people would respond and judged that those assumed responses were not worth sharing with readers. That is bad practice. Maybe those folks would have decided not to comment. If so, that should have been in the story.
But something in Kan's response made me much more uneasy than what I consider an error in judgment made on deadline. Kan wrote: "I don't think The Cavalier Daily has either the resources or perhaps authority ... to conduct its own inquiry."
The paper does not have the power to compel information's release that the University does. But if that precluded inquiry, then news organizations would never investigate crime or corruption because they do not have the same subpoena power as Congress and the courts. The Cavalier Daily may not have the resources to do a thorough investigation into the VQR and Morrissey's death. There are only so many staffers with so many hours to donate between classes. Maybe the editors believe those limited resources are better spent covering other stories. And maybe they are right. But The Cavalier Daily certainly has the authority to conduct its own inquiry. It is a newspaper. That is what they do.
Tim Thornton is the ombudsman for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
EDITORIAL: U.Va. needs to promote better artificial intelligence policies
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoA better method of controlling AI use in classrooms comes with collaboration and communication — the University should set a clear policy-making process for professors.
PAYNE: U.Va.’s acquisition of the FEI directly harms the children of Charlottesville
By Michael Payne | 4 days agoThe Department of Education rescinded its award to CCS and gave the FEI property to the University instead.
COHEN: Charlottesville must embrace a comprehensive solution to homelessness
By Ryan Cohen | 6 days agoThe city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough.
