If you follow any campus news blogs, (Critical Badger, Fearless Sifting, or the newly founded University and State, for example) you have doubtlessly witnessed discussion of the biggest controversy at UW: the rivalry between The Badger Herald and The Daily Cardinal.
Though CB often draws rightful conclusions about the Herald's superior news coverage, (no-brainer: it has the funding and the space needed for additional, reliable coverage) it often draws focus away from the content. One example was CB's mistake in following the Herald's mistaken report of UW Band Director Mike Leckrone's retirement. While CB scolded the Herald for their premature report, he absolved himself of drinking the Kool Aid with no cross-checking.
If bloggers want to be respected as knowledgeable authorities on campus news, they should not be drawn in by the prospect of adding a tally to the Herald/Cardinal scoreboard.
Similarly, from Suchita of University and State:
"I thought about writing a vehement LTE to the Daily Cardinal disagreeing with this editorial but figured no one really reads the DC."
Is this type of commentary necessary? While perfectly exemplifying the classic bloggier-than-thou attitude, it encourages apathy, not action on issues. Do students need more encouragement to reject participation as futile? I'll readily admit that I have a pro-Cardinal bias, but I think DC or BH-bashing is equally irrelevant, not to mention tiresome.
I'm not trying to blame just the bloggers, (that's the job of...everyone else) but when they invoke the long-standing rivalry between the papers in hopes of livening up their posts, or worse, trying to incite a comment war, they are neglecting their supposed roles: independent arbiters of campus news that encourage student action, not faction.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My comment about the Cardinal was meant as a snide remark, not to be taken too seriously. A slight jab at my U&S counterpart Kyle Dropp, who was on the DC ed board, as well as playing up the BH-DC rivalry (as I used to work for the BH). Not to mention shoddy journalism from the DC against my organization and my friends.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a student, I would read both the BH and DC daily. But writing an LTE as an alum on such a harmless (though pitiful) editorial didn't seem worth the opportunity cost. As you'll see, I edited my post to criticize the BH's editorial on the same subject as well.
I'm not disowning the sentiment of my comment, though. Take it as a call to action for the dwindling DC.
[the comment above was from me and not on behalf of U&S. - Suchita]
ReplyDeleteHello.
ReplyDeleteQUOTE: "Though CB often draws rightful conclusions about the Herald's superior news coverage, (no-brainer: it has the funding and the space needed for additional, reliable coverage) it often draws focus away from the content."
Are you implying the Herald's space and money is the reason for the better coverage? Would you defend the premise that Daily Cardinal staff members are equally informed about affairs or adequately approach issues? I am genuinely curious what a living, breathing Daily Cardinal staff member thinks.
QUOTE; "One example was CB's mistake in following the Herald's mistaken report of UW Band Director Mike Leckrone's retirement. While CB scolded the Herald for their premature report, he absolved himself of drinking the Kool Aid with no cross-checking."
While the Daily Cardinal reported nothing, in fact, the power of new media enabled the drum major of the blog immediately respond to the story on the CB. Not only does this suggest my blog is performing that cross-checking, but the Daily Cardinal was asleep at the switch, not responding to the Herald's reporting.
In fact, the Daily Cardinal ran a "story" on the issue ... and didn't even mention the Herald in the entire piece, even though they were the *only* source to make the claim of Leckrone stepping down. Somewhere, a J-School prof cries.
Now, your normative standard: blogs must cross-check. Well, that makes sense when they *report* news, but that's downright absurdity -- almost funny, if it weren't so sad an actual student journalist had such silly views -- considering the ability and intended role of a newspaper vs one person who runs a website.
I did not *report* that Leckrone retired. No, I simply LINKED to the Herald's story.
Now your normative standard would argue that I need to do *100%* of the research before ever making claims. How elitist. You *force* information control into the hands of structures like the Cardinal, as it's impossible for one person as a blogger to cover all topics out there.
In fact, it was my blog, not the Daily Cardinal who reported the mistake and Herald's removal of the story. So I believe that adequately resolves the "research" issue at stake.
QUOTE: "If bloggers want to be respected as knowledgeable authorities on campus news, they should not be drawn in by the prospect of adding a tally to the Herald/Cardinal scoreboard."
It does not surprise me the Cardinal would make this claim, but the reality is that campus papers have an incredible form of information control over students. Unlike other forms of press, the campus papers have nearly *no* checks on their power, and these papers are literally the only way many students get their news -- at the very least, it's pretty much the only way 99% of students hear about campus/local affairs.
That said, if one of the papers consistently fails -- or even if they both do -- it's important to have someone like a blogger consistently challenging them. Given the downright illegal/immoral actions of the press over the years at UW-Madison, including, but not limited to: the use of political operatives as "columnists" to further a hidden agenda, the ability of editors to push for a story that is either untrue or highly manipulated to fit a personal motive, misquoted and turnicated statements to radically alter statements, and downright incorrect reporting (recently: Bryon Eagon is not running for City Council [as of yet] but the Cardinal? Hasn't issued a retraction. They don't seem to care if they are wrong.
QUOTE: "Similarly, from Suchita of University and State:
"I thought about writing a vehement LTE to the Daily Cardinal disagreeing with this editorial but figured no one really reads the DC."
Is this type of commentary necessary? While perfectly exemplifying the classic bloggier-than-thou attitude, it encourages apathy, not action on issues. Do students need more encouragement to reject participation as futile? I'll readily admit that I have a pro-Cardinal bias, but I think DC or BH-bashing is equally irrelevant, not to mention tiresome."
I'm sorry it hurts your feelings that someone thinks your paper has failed, but to suggest she's promoting "inaction" is laughable. She is a citizen/student/alumnus of the school. She saw your paper made a bad claim. She suggests people write into the paper, and gives a snarky qualifier. That promotes *action* on behalf of those who accept her claim that a LTE is necessary.
And her criticism, whether you chose to accept it or not, is in itself a form of activism in media criticism. If your standard is "you must join the paper otherwise you are not allowed to critique it" then you live in a fantasy world. She has been uniquely involved in the affairs of the university and sees something wrong. It's up to the Cardinalistas to fix the problems.
And as for your swipe at blogger snark, are you suggesting your editorial staff does not engage in such behavior?
What type of boring and mechanical commentary would we see if one did not from time-to-time get hard hitting?
QUOTE: "I'm not trying to blame just the bloggers, (that's the job of...everyone else) but when they invoke the long-standing rivalry between the papers in hopes of livening up their posts, or worse, trying to incite a comment war, they are neglecting their supposed roles: independent arbiters of campus news that encourage student action, not faction"
Who died and made you the arbiter of truth and justice in the blogosphere? I did not get a memo saying that's my job.
1. We don't need to be independent of anything.
2. My blog, SV, FS, and a host of others have independently concluded on numerous occasion the papers are wrong, with more emphasis on the failures of the Cardinal because we believe they exist more. We seem to have fit your normative standard.
3. Your claim is circular: you've envoked on numerous occasions in this blog post a flame fest between bloggers and campus press staff members, a former herald member and you a cardinal staff member, and you yourself shown a lack of "independence" given your connection to the cardinal. Now, it's not that I believe that is a problem, but that's the standard *you* created.
4. You don't need to take the LSAT to see the assumption in your argument. With no basis, except to attempt to explain away coverage, you link blogger commentary on student press to an economic incentive or wanting more comments, etc.
That's just not true.
At the end of the day, we're just noting what many of your staff members/alumni will privately say: the Daily Cardinal is an inferior newspaper to the Badger Herald and is slowly slipping into campus obscurity. Instead of facing the problem, you seek to blame the bloggers.
Be my guest. I'll let the hundreds (maybe thousands) of CB commenters do the talking.