Fit To Print?

Editor’s Note: This column is the first in a monthly series by the managing editor that will address questions of journalism that are of interest to the Harvard community. It is not designed to address issues of particular controversy, but instead seeks to explain the everyday process that is part of The Crimson’s journalistic approach.

• • •

The First Word

No particular headline is inevitable. A good headline is far more than a summary. It has to characterize, in a few brief words, the most important themes and news items of the article it accompanies. There isn’t any magic formula for composing one; writing headlines will always require journalists to make news judgments about what is most important in the day’s events. And because the headline is the first—and sometimes the only—text a reader will see, those judgments will often influence how readers perceive an article or the issue it covers. No newspaper gets the product right every time, but the process of composing headlines can often help to clarify the day’s news—even for the writers and editors.

On April 20, three days into the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) sit-in in Massachusetts Hall, The Crimson’s lead article was headlined, “Sit-in Draws Counter-Protest, But No Talks.” The article focused on a group of about 20 students who were protesting PSLM’s sit-in. Throughout the protest, both PSLM and the administration had been highly conscious of their public image, and rightfully so. One of the powers of a sit-in is its visibility and potential to mobilize public opinion; the way the protest is reported in the media can have a powerful influence over its eventual success or failure.

Some of our readers were not pleased with the focus of the April 20 article. They pointed out that the crowds supporting the sit-in were far larger than the ones opposed to it. The Crimson, these readers argued, was making a big deal out of a very small group of discontented students.

Indeed, the story ran after a very full day of events at Harvard. Nearly 50 students had held a candlelight vigil that evening; at a noon rally, nearly 100 people circled Mass. Hall in support of the occupants; and a group of students at Yale had held a rally to show their support as well.

Out of that mix, we had to decide what, in the larger picture, should be considered the most significant of these events. What would students on campus want to know the next morning? What would someone going through our archives next semester or several years from now think was most important about that particular day?

We concluded that the counter-protest needed to be the focus of the article. April 19 was the first day that Harvard’s campus saw active and organized student opposition to PSLM—as opposed to support or silence. This was unusual and unexpected, and we thought it was important to note that some students opposed the sit-in strongly enough to protest against it. We had already reported that PSLM had taken over administrative offices, and that the group had mobilized support outside of the building in the form of rallies and speakers. The counter-protest was therefore the major new development for that day and merited the highest placement.

The number of participants in the counter-protest was certainly smaller than in the other rallies that occurred on April 19. But the size of a protest is not the only indicator of its significance. We had covered demonstrations in support of a living wage that attracted fewer than 20 students because they illustrated increasingly visible and public activism on campus. It seemed only fair to cover demonstrations of similar size and significance when they opposed PSLM.

The process was one that reinforced the importance of picking the right headline. It also highlighted the risks inherent in distilling any news article into a concise title phrase.

• • •

Naming Names

Media organizations are frequently criticized for a heartless approach to the news. Stories that are damaging to a person’s reputation make the front page just as quickly—and many would say even more quickly—as stories that enhance it. At times, readers argue the media should be more hesitant to run articles that injure a person’s reputation—or, if the news must get out, that the subject be left unnamed.

Yet on a daily basis, The Crimson prints stories where the subjects shouldn’t go unnamed, where their identities are relevant to readers and shouldn’t be obscured. A process that requires editors to pick and choose which subjects are sympathetic—which deserve protection and which do not—would invite journalistic bias.

Journalists play God when they decide for their readers when to hide information from them. Frequently, those choices are unavoidable. There are only so many pages in the paper, and to serve their readers newspapers highlight some information and de-emphasize the rest. But it’s dangerous for journalists to decide when to pull their punches on the basis of reputations. As a result, The Crimson tries to print the information its reporters know.

On April 17, we reported that three student publications, including The Crimson, were investigating a student for plagiarism. Before the article ran, administrators, friends and colleagues close to the student repeatedly entreated us not to run it. They argued we had fulfilled our responsibility to our readers to correct her dishonesty—The Crimson had already retracted the four articles we believed were not entirely her own work, and she had resigned her editorship of The Crimson as well as her membership in several other publications.

It was clear to all of us that the student had suffered a great deal for her mistake, and was incredibly distraught over the possibility that it would be publicized. Friends and colleagues pointed out that an article would likely be seen by her teaching fellows, professors and casual acquaintances, and while it was unclear what their reaction to it might be, running the article would very likely cause her significant harm.

This was a serious concern for us. But we also felt that this story was very interesting, very important and already very public. A student had plagiarized on multiple occasions in multiple campus publications. This was a rare event, a dishonesty repeatedly undertaken in a public forum, and we ultimately did not want a concern for her reputation to stay our hand on significant news.

Getting the news out is an important duty. No insight or understanding of larger issues is possible without a regular supply of day-to-day information—and ultimately these small details serve as the engine for every kind of change. To be newsworthy, stories don’t have to result in an immediate reaction. Printing information that adds to campus discussion or that might promote some greater understanding will, in the long run, serve the campus well. We feel strongly that a newspaper owes its readers the full story—printing whatever, in its editors’ best judgment, will be interesting and important to its community.

Parker R. Conrad ’02, a chemistry concentrator in Quincy House, is managing editor of The Crimson. His column will appear monthly.