Posted on 11/30/2001 5:26:00 AM PST by bloodmeridian
Focus: Sex toys lecture coverage
An administrator questions journalistic standards
Dear Ms. McLaughlin [editor of this publication]:
Having read almost every issue of The Pitt News since I became Interim Head of Student Affairs, I continue to be impressed by the leadership you have provided for this publication. As I have indicated on several occasions, I have been and will continue to be an ardent defender of freedom of the press and speech. In the immediate instance, I understand fully the independence of The Pitt News to determine its content, even though The Pitt News has a formal association with the University of Pittsburgh.
Moreover, I believe that the defense of a free press and free speech is of critical importance for young people who are members of a higher education learning community. Thus, I am among those who defend your right to place a story, “Students learn sex toy safety” as the lead, front-page story for the November 29, 2001 Pitt News. At the same time, I want to be among the first to question The Pitt News’ judgment regarding the content and placement of that story.
I respect the varying individual and collective expressions of sexuality and related experiences. I am an advocate of sex education, broadly defined. At the same time, I believe that the diverse nature of our campus and surrounding community is such that the preservation of a free press, free speech, and sex education requires persistent vigilance in the exercise of our freedom, lest we awaken the demons of censorship. For example, I could choose to make a reference to an “incestuous son,” as opposed to selecting the more profane expression. My choice of terms depends on factors such as where, when, how, why, and to whom I am communicating. I, as well as many other members of the University community, could not ascertain why The Pitt News chose to publish the above-referenced story, as written (and accompanying pictures), much less place it on the front page for readership.
What was the purpose of using a picture that numerous members of the community deem pornographic? What was the purpose of using language that also would be classified as pornographic? Given The Pitt News’ readership beyond our campus, what were the desired outcomes of this story? Using your standards of best practice in journalism, does this story meet those standards? Perhaps your published response to these questions might help to deter those who would react by seeking to limit the freedom of the press and free speech.
Jack L. Daniel
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
Interim Vice Provost and Dean of Students
Coverage fulfilled paper's mission to report on issues that shape student life
by SHANNON McLAUGHLIN
Editor in Chief
It is immensely important that Dr. Jack Daniel recognizes and defends The Pitt News’ rights and freedoms. It is my hope that his strident beliefs in freedom of the press and speech are echoed throughout the entirety of Pitt’s administration.
Recognizing that it is the prerogative of The Pitt News to publish whatever its student leaders deem newsworthy, I’m nevertheless glad for the opportunity to explain to our chief priority — our readers — the reasoning behind publishing yesterday’s front page story, “Students learn sex toy safety.”
The Pitt News has never demurred in its mission to accurately report on the issues that shape student life at this University. Whether you agree with the ideas presented at Wednesday night’s seminar or not, the event generated considerable student interest. Given the fact that the event was of interest to so many students, it was placed on the front page. There were three stories that the sex toy safety story preceded, and each was considered for the front page, but ultimately dismissed for different reasons.
The Pitt News has already given sizeable coverage to the Living Wage campaign this semester (often on the front page), and the charity rummage sale simply didn’t generate the same student interest as the sex toy safety seminar. Dr. Maya Angelou had been featured on the cover of The Pitt News just the day before. Story placement is a news judgment that student leaders in our office — who have received months and in some cases years of training — are more than qualified to make.
The photograph and language chosen to accompany the story are a fair and accurate representation of the event. To have chosen different language or to have cropped crucial elements from photos would have effectively misrepresented the entire affair. The University community is a wide and diverse one, and people are bound to disagree on the basis of taste. It is appropriate to note, though, that students — who make up the majority of Pitt News readership — have vastly different ideas about standards of taste than their administrative counterparts at the University.
Neither this story nor its photograph is pornographic. Our coverage was — as it always is — designed with a higher purpose. The Supreme Court has ruled that obscene and unprotected speech is that which is without “redeeming social importance” (Miller vs. California). What The Pitt News published was no centerfold. It was an informative photograph accompanying a story designed to explain to students the importance of safety in conjunction with sex toys.
Desired outcomes don’t change with story topic. They remain, as ever, to educate and enlighten members of our campus community and to encourage thoughtful discourse. And to that end, The Pitt News succeeded yesterday. Students and administrators alike were talking. Students without prior knowledge of sex toys learned about the importance of safety measures. Caution harms no one. Any story that teaches, reports on an event that a significant number of students attended and promotes campus discussion meets my standards.
I am proud of the daily work this newspaper does and I am proud of the integrity displayed by its employees.
And to critics, I say this: Your opinion matters too. But the most effective way to address your disapproval is via a signed letter, e-mail or phone call to me. If you are blaming Pitt News content on the University, you are in error. I, and I alone, assume full responsibility for what appears on our pages.
This invitation to discourse extends to administrators and alumni as well. I will gladly receive phone calls and correspondence, even if it is critical. That is my job. It is not the job of fellow administrators, students, colleagues or friends. Telling these people how enraged you are will accomplish nothing. Members of my staff and I have held meetings on many occasions with individuals and groups unhappy about coverage. I will never turn down the opportunity to discuss ways in which we can make The Pitt News better. This is a university, and thoughtful discussion should be one of our primary goals.
Shannon McLaughlin expects to hear from you. You can reach her at 648-7985 and via e-mail at editor@pittnews.com.
Regulation of campaign finance is nonsense.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/580346/posts
Thank goodness the Pitt News is there to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the student body (so to speak). Talk about a disingenuous justification for publishing such an idiotic, offensive "news" story.
In some cases, the self-important student "journalist" eventually outgrows the misguided belief that everything he or she has to say is significant. Unfortunately, having worked with a few recent J-school grads at the newspaper at which I work, I can say that doesn't always happen.
Me too. I find it awfully curious how they seem to confuse that self-importance with so-called objectivity.
I disagree, dude. I think more of what goes on within the sacred halls should be published and exposed for what it is-- an attempt to legitimatize the petty and worthless (as far as academic pursuits go... Now what you or I do on our own damn time, that's another matter. ;)
Well that must be because of the way the last generation screwed up the kids...
You are, of course, correct. The problem I have with her position, however, is that she and her staff are passing the "lecture" off as "news." It is nothing of the kind. In fact, the presentation of the piece was so matter-of-fact as to be humorous. I suspect that was intentional, and I therefore don't see why it was on the front page--unless of course that front page belonged to The Onion.
If that article is an example of 'their finest hour', I'm elated that I don't live anywhere near it.
(Whatever they have, might be catching.....)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.