I haven’t posted much lately. I haven’t merely been sitting around reading about journalism in The New Yorker. There was the tragic news of Minghui Yu, which demanded a lot of attention both as a concerned student and as a journalist trying to figure out what happened. There’s been a lot of late breaking news, too, like the Teachers College story and the empty but momentarily street-freezing bomb threat. When news breaks late, we have to decide whether to delay our printing of the paper, change the front page’s layout, spend time reporting, and finally have the paper come out later. It’s a case-by-case call, but what I look for in this case is to measure how much time reporting will take, how important the news is–and with that, how much will we lose by having the physical newspaper hit stands later–and, finally, whether we have enough original reporting (as opposed to citing the New York Times or Associated Press) to merit foregoing a simple update of the web site and reworking the physical paper. I originally wanted to comment on the NYer piece when it came out, but then the breaking news delayed that. I feel like the piece is a few years late anyway, so why not dive into it a little late?

Read the rest of this entry »

We put in a lot of hours at the Spectator, and sometimes we find that we haven’t sufficiently advertised to readers some of the products we’re most proud of. So, allow us a moment to describe one of those products:

As we are all coming upon spring break and getting ready for a bit of relaxation before the second half of the semester sets in, I wanted to take the time to reflect upon how many times my jaw has dropped looking at the amazing multimedia pieces we have created this semester. The introductions, the transitions, and the sound quality have been second to none within the college-daily “world.” I mean, can you honestly find the difference in quality between this multimedia piece on Obama from Spec to this New York Times video piece on Hillary?

At the beginning of the new year and the new 132nd Managing Board’s tenure at Spectator, the online section was the largest it had ever been, with nine total staffers. At the moment, we have grown to a total of five associate editors, five deputy editors, and myself, along with two new potential recruits to be interviewed after spring break. This means a lot for a section which only had one staffer this time last year. Read the rest of this entry »

We received a perceptive comment from a reader noting that we might be missing the point of this blog if we don’t comment on the process of developing our stories and describe how the big decisions are made. I think the note was right on. The design of this blog was to take last year’s news editor’s blog (almost solely dedicated to posts about process, and pretty successful in that regard) and expand that model with a broader scope (journalism in general) with more contributors (the entire managing board). So far we haven’t come through with enough posts on how we arrive at our final product. This is something we’ve already been discussing lately - blogging is a difficult endeavor, even Josh’s popular attempt became tedious once the semester spiraled into “Ahmadineamania” - but we will definitely try harder. Thanks for the feedback! (incidentally, check out this NYTimes piece featuring a Wal-Mart blog…it speaks to both an interesting media project by an American corporation and the difficulties of blogging authentically without sounding like pr)

On that note, I’ve been meaning to write about how we covered the plagiarism at Teachers College. Notice the title of this post uses specific language - “TC Plagiarism,” as opposed to “Constantine,” “Noose Victim,” or anything else that may get bandied about in other media outlets or almost certainly the blogosphere. As we saw it, the story here was that a Teachers College professor had allegedly committed plagiarism, copying without accreditation the work of a fellow faculty member and two students. Many newspapers and blogs played up the noose incident of October (it catches their readers’ eye, I guess), some even throwing in loose allusions to the possibility that Prof. Constantine placed the noose on her own door. When we first got wind of the story, we knew we had to be very careful about the information we received, where we got it, and how we reported on it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Particularly with the visit of Washington Post editor Len Downie just days away (whose speech we should have up online soon, for those who are curious), some of us at Spec followed closely the development of the rival New York Times‘ now-infamous story detailing (sort of) the romantic/professional ties of Republican candidate Senator John McCain with various lobbyists. The piece, which broke the story and was followed quickly by a Post article the same day (and which Downie admitted the Post needed before running their piece) took close to a year to develop. It drew instant backlash - to the point that the actual news was lost on some. Here, the Times editors respond to readers’ questions on everything from reporting logistics to the ethical merits of the decision to run the piece without what some would call key evidence. These Q&As with editors can make for great reads - at the same time, one can sometimes feel the judicious calculations made by the Times in how they pick and choose their response. Note, for example, a question about the Editorial side’s endorsement of McCain and whether it conflicts or has any relation to the News side’s work. While it may have been a coincidence, the Times was well-served by having the politics editor answer that one - after all, by its very nature, that editor could not speak for the Editorial side.

Also, an aside: Stephen Colbert’s hilarious segment on the “bad…bad journalism” exhibited by the Times. As one former Spec editor mentioned, maybe the “newspaper of record” simply got this one right, regardless?

Now, the actual point of this post. Thinking about the McCain story makes me think of the state of the media in general. If the Times can be discredited so well, so quickly, on a piece that took months of reporting, fact-checking, and editorial review, it seems anything can happen. Regardless of how one feels about the piece (I’m still iffy on its validity, myself), it speaks to the power of the press today, when watchdog journalism carries with it the perils of instant vilification in the blogosphere. The mainstream media, however small or traditional (read: reactionary) its role in the world, must feel threatened by all this. The Times also reports on an alternative form of media, Wikileaks.org, being shut down by a federal judge, drawing comparisons to the Supreme Court Pentagon Papers case. Ironically, the article reports:
“The feebleness of the action suggests that the bank, and the judge, did not understand how the domain system works or how quickly Web communities will move to counter actions they see as hostile to free speech online.”
Perhaps the Internet will save journalism? Perhaps.

The NYC Board of Elections released its official vote tally earlier today, confirming that Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama 55% to 43%, a margin of over 114,000 votes. Most interestingly, check out the numbers split up by district. Neither Charlie Rangel’s nor Jerrold Nadler’s districts - the two nearest Columbia - were all that close, though the 7000+ vote margin Hillary took in the 15th District did not exactly constitute a landslide victory.

The Eye got an awesome e-mail this week; I wanted to share it, but not badly enough to print it. (I hate talking about poop–this seriously qualifies as a “thing” with me—and I didn’t want the subject to grace our pages two weeks in a row.)

Here’s a link to the original article.

The e-mail is pasted below.

Dear Mr. Raphael Pope-Sussman,

I will have you know that the fist person who, having closed a toilet seat, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. I should say immediately that I, too, used to have my own toilet. Twas indeed a throne, and I confess I know the “corpulent and pasty thighs” of those strangers of whom you speak. They haunted me for a time, but then I became a Communist. Now I share my toilet openly with all - and I highly recommend you yourself take a spin on it. (Get in touch, but wait until you’re sure it’s gonna be a good one.) You will not fail to be impressed with what Wien has to offer, except in one very important category that I sure you’re familiar with.

My complaints reside not with your pseudo-Lockean drivel, of course, but with the insensitivity I perceived in your diatribe to my own anal sensitivity. You’re right: You are no rocket scientist. And just four people shouldn’t go through an entire roll of toilet paper every day. It is this very intelligent declaration that concerns me, but not as a jumping-ground for suspicion of some hygienic intruder like perhaps my socialist self, as you intended it to be. Instead, I see your reflection as a noble and furious testimony of the greatest challenge facing Columbia University and every institutional bathroom in the Universe:

bad

toilet

paper.

Allow me to explain. The toilet paper at this revoltingly rich, elite University has the texture of fucking sandpaper. Besides providing my guests and myself with that acute sensation one might imagine a diamond feels at the polisher’s, the stuff they call toilet paper here doesn’t even work. The highly inefficient process of using more to wipe more only compounds the problem of anal pore suffering. On a good day, with a nice solid turd, I can cap off at three wipes. Most days aren’t good days. I hope this helps you to understand the dearth of toilet paper situation you mention, which I suggest we rename “the excess of coated-abrasives situation.” To repeat, you have no toilet precisely because it doesn’t work.

So we have a problem to solve. Often when people have problems to solve, they ask, “What next?” I have often considered we go on a poop strike. I can hear it now replaying endlessly on Fox News: “DEAN COLUMBO, HELP MY BUM YO!” We will most certainly invite Bollinger and his wife to come shit on the port-A-potties we could set up on Low Steps. When it’s time to wipe, you know what they’re getting.

Or, I could just save us all the fun and buy my own toilet paper. I hope I have found in you a sympathetic reader.

Yours truly,

Christopher Brian Duncan

Some New York Times reading for you. These just fell into my inbox - they’re both old pieces (one more than the other) but worth a look as they are possibly the two Columbia/Barnard-related “stars” of the week in the media’s eyes, one releasing a self-named debut album and the other taking the helm at Barnard College after Judith Shapiro’s 14-year tenure.

So we have famous alumni who shop at Kim’s and Lacoste, and we have an original Modern Love piece from 2005 (since we’ll be receiving a lot of press releases on Debora Spar’s appointment).