We’re shaking up our structure a little with our Title IX coverage. I think it’s an essential issue (otherwise I wouldn’t have put it on two consecutive front pages), so we need to make sure it’s getting fair, thorough coverage. That’s why this week’s Title IX story—managing editor Dana’s report on a group of student organizers demanding a full-time coordinator—despite being newsy, appears in Opinions.
The story would normally fall under News, but Hannah Johnston, one of our News editors, is among the organizers taking this initiative into her hands. That’s fine with me. As I’ve stated in these pages before, I don’t believe in the concept of objectivity, the view from nowhere, etc.—I think that journalists should be able to reveal their beliefs if they so choose, and I think that “objectivity” is too often cited in attempts to squash deviation from the norm. But that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in straight reporting: sometimes, the best approach really is to present all the sides available, in a balanced manner, without imbuing the story with the reporter’s opinion. Essential to this process, and to all reporting, is the disallowal of subjects from reviewing the stories in which they are featured, because people tend to want to tailor how they come across. That’s why Dana’s story, as well as any coverage of this particular group of Title IX activists going forward, falls in Ops. It’s not that I don’t trust Hannah not to editorialize the piece; but it would be neither fair nor transparent if we gave her the chance.
This all relates, too, to the letter from Dean McKnight included below. Clearly he wasn’t pleased by last issue’s cover story, for reasons related to individual perception as well as factual accuracy. For the factual corrections, I thank Dean McKnight: as editor in chief, I should’ve caught the mistakes about McNeely Cobham’s responsibilities and Pierce’s position. I thought they were well-sourced, but I should have verified. The point about distributing responsibility versus offering more options, I have a harder time accepting: it seems like regardless of the officially-stated rationale, the effect falls in line with the reasoning presented in the letter as well as the article: the work is divided, and that division does provide more options.
Factual errors and differences in opinion alike remind me that running this paper—like running an educational institution—is a learning process, and we’re constantly improving. If you want proof, turn back to the front page and check out Dana’s story. That one is airtight.
-Maia
