Objectivity

• TWEET
• SHARE
• SHARE

Earlier this week, loyal Buzz reader Ernie Nounou asked:

Still in the New Year spirit and not snarky, imagine the challenge balancing objectivity and supportiveness in covering and having to write about most of the program’s teams in their current state. I’d put the question to David Gurian-Peck: How does a DP reporter balance objectivity with being supportive to fellow students, without sounding like a cheer leader? It is surely easier and more pleasurable writing about winning teams.

The most common on-campus criticism of the DP's sports coverage is that we are intentionally mean-spirited, purposely and unfairly harping on athletes' or teams' failures without adequately addressing their accomplishments. From the year I spent editing this section,  I can say that this is unequivocally false. Like any news organization, we make mistakes. But it's not like we're sitting in our windowless office plotting our next crusade against Penn student-athletes. We do not intentionally try to be mean or unduly critical in print.

The second, related common criticism goes something like this: "You guys are the voice of the University of Pennsylvania community. As such, you should try to make your fellow students look good. You should, whenever possible, highlight the good things that we do, and perhaps sometimes, you should look the other way on some of our failings. You writers aren't good enough to play sports, while we put in 20 hours per week to hone our craft. You should write about how great we are."

Well, I reject that view, too. (Except for the part about our lack of athletic prowess -- that is most certainly true. And while I have tremendous respect for the talents of most Penn athletes, I would like to point out that we do spend 50 hours per week putting out the newspaper. But I digress.)

The goal of the DP''s sports section -- like that of any college or, even, professional newspaper -- should be to report fairly on what actually transpires. That means ignoring, or calling out, the cliched spin that some athletes/coaches/members of the Athletic Department try to put on certain situation. That means praising teams when they succeed, as I think the DP has nicely done with W. Lax, Football, and Volleyball, to name a few. That also means pointing out when teams play poorly, and writing about the story of the game or season. Sometimes, that's when a player nearly throws a no-hitter, or hits a game-winning shot at the buzzer (two of my favorite events that I have covered). Other times, the most important thing is that somebody struck out with the bases loaded, or shot 1-for-15, or threw three interceptions, etc.

We can't control what happens. We can only write about it. Some athletes and coaches have said that the number of "negative" stories outnumbers the number of "positive" ones about their. If true, that is usually a reflection of that team's play: bad teams shouldn't get glowing, sugar-coated stories. Good teams have earned "positive" stories. And while it's never as simple as a balancing act between these so-called "positive" and "negative" stories, it's worth noting that the DP does run many feature/profile stories. These almost always portray everybody in an excellent light, and we would write even more if we knew more about players' personal lives and backgrounds.

In short (and, as you can see, I was never good at being concise): We shouldn't treat Penn teams differently just because we go to Penn. With few exceptions, they should be subject to the same praise, and accountability, of their professional counterparts.

Two additional points.

First, perception of objectivity is also critical. As such, DP sports editors have for years prevented reporters from wearing any Penn apparel to any events they cover (You would never see, say, a Phillies writer donning a Phillies cap in the press box). Similarly, the few reporters who have cheered out loud for the Quakers from the pressbox have been reprimanded. New media raises new problems. I think it crossed the line when writers/editors Tweeted or wrote on Facebook their pleasure/satisfaction with Glen Miller's dismissal, just as I think it crossed the line when writers/editors Tweeted or wrote on Facebook their happiness/excitement with Penn winning the football Ivy League title.

Second, personally, I have always rooted for the story, not for a team. I know this sounds cliche, but it's true. There are DP crime writers who like when crime occurs on or near campus, not because they are insensitive or want people to get hurt, but because the reporting gives them a thrill. The same applies to sports writing, at least for me. Just as I wanted to see Todd Roth get that no-hitter years ago, I would have wanted to see a no-hitter against Penn, because a no-hitter is something special. There was a football game earlier this season that I wanted the Quakers to lose, because they played poorly early on and didn't deserve to win, and it would have made for more compelling copy to write about how they blew their season with sloppy mistakes. By the time I went up to Boston for the de facto championship game, I hoped Penn would win because the more historic/exciting angle was the first championship in six years.

To the extent that writers become emotionally involved in what they cover -- and, protestations to the contrary, human nature dictates that we do -- I think this is the best balance. If you care about the story, and are fair to everyone involved, everything else should fall into place.

Ernie, I hope this answers some of the questions you raised. I would love to hear more about what you and other readers think about this issue, so post your views in the comments.