COLUMN: Might and Right

From Dan Schorr's "Behind Enemy Lines," Fall '94 incidents of hypocrisy, rigidity, and callousness that hurt the lives of undergraduates. However, when the DP itself is responsible for such actions, our campus newspaper is not quite so thorough in its investigative reporting. Rather, quotes are paraphrased into more sensitized statements, news editors shirk their "let the public know" philosophy by refusing to comment, and important elements of a breaking news story fail to make it to print. According to the Nominations and Elections Committee's Fair Practices Code, candidates for the Undergraduate Assembly may not be quoted in the press discussing election issues during the campaign period. Breaking this regulation can, and sometimes actually does, result in disqualification. Last week, DP writer Randi Feigenbaum called seven freshmen candidates, intending to interview them. Five wisely stated before commenting that their names must be withheld. Two did not make this request until, in the opinion of the DP, it was too late. One of these candidates recognized his mistake after hanging up and frantically called the reporter back. To his dismay, he was informed that the opportunity to withhold his name had expired. The candidate proceeded to discuss the days and days of hard work that had gone into the campaign, pleading that the reporter not subject him for disqualification from something which he viewed with such high hopes. Feigenbaum refused to withhold the candidate's name. Another freshman candidate did not forget the NEC's directive, and after a few sentences with the reporter mentioned that the quotes should be printed anonymously. In this case, the same reporter maintained that anonymity must be asked for before, not after, statements are given. The freshman, just a month and a half into college, was not aware of this journalistic procedure. Consequently -- despite her vociferous protests -- she was quoted, name and all. Apparently, the two candidates' names were essential to this article on the always important and controversial subject of e-mail. The fact that both candidates could be disqualified -- one who placed third in the voting ultimately was -- did not matter. While Feigenbaum notes that the candidates "begged" her to not use their names, she maintains that she did the right thing. "I did my job," she explained. "Chalk it up for a learning experience, I guess." DP Managing Editor Cara Tanamachi, who also personally rejected a candidate's pleas for anonymity, declined to comment, citing a DP rule that only the Executive Editor should speak publicly on behalf of the DP. Clearly, the DP had a legal right to print the names. As Feigenbaum said, "The NEC does not have any laws for the DP ... it's not a 'gag rule' on us." But was the paper morally right? Yesterday's editorial addressed this issue, explaining, "We believe our on-the-record reporting should be maintained in all cases." This is the let's-be-consistent-and-not-start-a-slippery-slope argument If freshmen can take back their names, what about older students, or faculty, or President Rodin? Where will it all end? Freshmen begging to have their names withheld? A major college experience on the line? Some of the more weak at heart might say, "Sure, I don't have to do this, but I'll leave you anonymous with the rest." Feigenbaum, and the editors who supported her, disagree. "You can't just bend the rules," she said. News is news, quotes are quotes -- you must be accurate and consistent. That is, until DP personnel are on the line. Throughout the hearing for the candidates, Feigenbaum's name was brought up many times. Even many who remained anonymous in the article publicly claimed the DP reporter had attempted to manipulate them. However, the "objective" news article the next day failed to include a single mention of these utterances. Apparently, although the article focused heavily on the candidate's disqualification, these accusations were not deemed relevant. After the hearing, the disqualified candidate was interviewed and specifically expressed his frustration with Feigenbaum. But in the article, his direct quote was paraphrased, with the anger in the printed statement redirected at "DP staff" -- somehow, through the miracle of inaccurate journalism, pluralizing and protecting the identity of the reporter. Freshmen candidates' names and their arguably unimportant quotes were printed because of journalistic principle, regardless of who might be hurt. Meanwhile, this statement, central to the facts of the news story, was altered. Yesterday's editorial identified the DP's policy as treating stories with "as much objectivity as possible." Was this philosophy applied here? DP Executive Editor Jordana Horn declined to explain the rationale behind this manipulation. In the real world, journalists are careful not to burn sources for frivolous ends. In a competitive news market, reporters want their sources to continue bringing information to them -- not to rival news organizations. However, at Penn, the DP has a virtual monopoly on news information. Therefore, when sources feel they are being misquoted or otherwise mistreated, they can not realistically take their information elsewhere. The fact that their options are limited to returning to the DP and choosing virtual public silence gives the paper a power that can be very dangerous. For these two freshmen, surely a "learning experience" has occurred. What have they learned? Obviously, to follow directions carefully. But possibly also to be a little more cynical and wary regarding their fellow students, knowing that others often do not have the best of intentions. Yesterday's editorial proclaimed that the DP's decision to print the names was "an attempt to maintain journalistic integrity" and "an appropriate editorial judgment." What's in a name? Two freshmen's aspirations placed in jeopardy, with one losing something very important to him. But the DP has shown, at least with non-DP staffers, that it will always be true to and consistent with what it views as proper journalistic practices. And the University community will continue to reap the rewards and the consequences. Dan Schorr is a senior English major from Valley Stream, New York. Behind Enemy Lines appears alternate Fridays.