The Crimson Shows Its True Colors
Posted on February 25th, 2006 in Uncategorized |
Below, former Crimson editors and business people show off their objectivity….(thanks to the poster who brought this to my attention; you can find the original here.)
Below, former Crimson editors and business people show off their objectivity….(thanks to the poster who brought this to my attention; you can find the original here.)
9 Responses
2/25/2006 1:11 pm
We are all former editors, and have no role in the production of the paper any longer. We are simply acting in our role as students. Even so, The Crimson decided not to publish this image.
Best,
“R”
2/25/2006 1:23 pm
R—okay, that’s good to know. But in its original story, the Crimson did not describe everyone as a former editor. It sounded like some were former, some were not….
Also, if you’re former editors, doesn’t that mean that it’s only recently that you stopped serving in that role?
I really don’t mean to be unfair here, so if I’m being too harsh, I’m willing to change my mind….
2/25/2006 1:53 pm
Some of the people stopped serving recently, others long ago. The Crimson describes people as “also a Crimson editor” sometimes even if they graduated in 1982. The idea is once a Crimson editor, always a Crimson editor. It is a very confusing policy (especially because people outside Harvard have a tendency to interpret the word editor as meaning that the person is “the editor” of The Crimson.)
2/25/2006 1:55 pm
And only two of the people were ever actual “editors” in the more generally accepted sense of the word (and one of those was business manager).
2/25/2006 3:06 pm
new anonymous here. Sounds like it isn’t just grade inflation that’s a problem at Harvard….so many “editors” sounds like institutionalized resume padding to me…
2/25/2006 4:56 pm
R,
Another thought: I’m not sure that being “former editors” really gets you off the hook here.
I know that the Crimson wants to be considered a professional paper whenever it’s good for the Crimson—getting access, suing the HPD for its records, getting people to trust its reporters.
One can not imagine the former editors of a professional newspaper endorsing a political figure as you guys just endorsed Larry Summers.
The Crimson can’t have it both ways, saying, We want to be treated like professionals, and then not acting like professionals and pulling the L-A-R-R-Y stunt.
And, of course, it certainly raises the question of whether you all had that booster-ish attitude *while* you were editors….
2/26/2006 9:15 am
Do you intend to correct your label “current and former Crimson editors”?
2/27/2006 10:10 am
Anonymous—
Consider it corrected.
Now, if the Crimson would only correct the mistakes in Sam Teller’s interview with me….pointed out on this blog already.
2/27/2006 8:50 pm
Richard -
Being as you continue to trash on us, calling us an “embarrassment to the paper,” I feel like I need to respond to your comments.
First of all, it should be noted that we were all acting within the confines of our own dormitory, at a study break which had been planned out months ago. This was far from a public forum. But this is truly an aside from the points you are making; I simply wanted to point this out.
Second of all, none of us have to do with Summers coverage on the Crimson. I will break down our roles for you:
There are two photographers, one of which last contributed to the Crimson in 2003, and the other of which is a former executive editor. There is a sports beat reporter, mainly with a focus on soccer and lacrosse. He has not written any news stories. There is the business manager. The former business manager was certainly a member of the executive guard, but someone with no control over content. Finally, there is a former news executive editor. This is as close as you get with hitting home on your point. However, the news executive is not one who has covered Summers, or one who oversaw Summers coverage - an archive search turns up no references to Summers in the headline or lede of any articles. The total Summers coverage from these five individuals is in the form of two photographs: one mugshot, and one appearance at a study break dancing with freshmen, both in early 2005.
I should note that only executive guard members have any say over content that appears, and none of these executive influenced Summers coverage, nor have we given the appearance that we have.
None of us have, or have had any impact on Summers coverage throughout this ordeal, and as former editors, our actions do not reflect upon current coverage.
Those who must remain impartial on The Crimson are those who cover Summers, and those who control the content that he appears in. The Crimson, just like any other newspaper is clear about this; for example, The Crimson has written staff editorials supporting Summers. By definition, some members of the staff have taken a stance on the issue. We have made no effort not to weigh in on the topic as a staff – much like any major newspaper advocates for political candidates and political policies – but those who report on Summers do not participate.
Claiming that all Crimson staffers should remain mum on the issue is like stating no member of a magazine (former or current) should ever staff a political campaign, or join an organization on which the publication has reported. On the contrary, this restriction becomes quite silly unless is deals with only those reporters and editors who cover the topic. Do you think no one from the New York Times, George Magazine, or The New Republic, has ever advocated a cause or candidate discussed within its pages?
The Crimson currently covers all the varsity sports that take place on campus. Some Crimson editors are athletes. Does this bias the Crimson’s coverage of sports? Should the organization force these editors to choose either their team or The Crimson? No - so long as they do not cover their own sport.
The Crimson reports on Harvard football. Does this preclude all editors from cheering in the stands, or, gasp, painting their chests in support?
I think this is truly the point that is of concern. The Crimson, or any other publication, would be paralyzed if every one of its editors had to refrain from taking stances on any issue covered in the paper, or expressing any sorts of opinions relating to any aspect of the publication’s coverage.
You also mention that perhaps we had a “booster-ish” attitude while we were contributing to the Crimson. Perhaps some of us did (I can only speak for myself), but any reporter might have any opinion on a given issue. Those who cover politics likely vote, and thus have an opinion strong enough to pull them to the polls; the important thing is that if they cover an issue, they cover it objectively and not publicly take a stance. Though we have publicly taken a stance, we did so after our tenure ended, and stayed away from Summers coverage during our time at the paper. The fact that we may have had an opinion, whether or not we covered Summers, is again irrelevant. We all have opinions about President Bush, but some still report on him.
The conflict of interest argument also cannot be applied retroactively - just because someone has an opinion now doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have covered an issue in the past. However, again, this is irrelevant, as none of us did cover Summers.
I think it’s important that I address these issues if they concern you, and if this represents the organization’s biggest flaw during all this coverage, I think it serves as a testament to the great reporting current editors have done so far.
I also think it is important that we try to maintain discourse while examining the issue - if you have a problem with coverage in the future, please say so, because I think it fosters productive discussion, but I personally think printing headlines such as “The Crimson Shows Its True Colors” and “Bad Journalism,” while labeling us as an “embarrassment” and “totally gay,” is at best inflammatory, and doesn’t serve to further these goals.
Best,
“R”