Search Results

Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.

COLUMN: Open up the 'DP' newsroom

(03/26/98 10:00am)

From Mike Madden's, "Opiate of the Masses," Fall '98 From Mike Madden's, "Opiate of the Masses," Fall '98For a newspaper that's read by more than 14,000 people every day, The Daily Pennsylvanian can be awfully mysterious. Every day, decisions are made about every story in the paper that affect how readers get their news. If a story goes on the front page, that influences how people receive its message, and if something gets buried on page 10, that says something, too. Or take corrections. In tiny print on the bottom of page 2, they can seem almost like they're worded specifically to be incomprehensible to anyone who didn't already know about the error they're correcting. How useful is it to know that "Yesterday's DP should not have given the impression that College senior Mike Madden put a bomb in College Hall," if you don't also get an explanation of what really did happen? Or why the paper made the error in the first place, or how it was discovered? In fact, very few people around campus know much about how the DP works. To the vast majority of casual readers, the paper may as well be a monolithic, monopolistic, self-styled, all-knowing Penn version of The New York Times, put out by a staff that toes some organizational line on every issue and never disagrees about coverage. To make matters worse, so much ignorance and obfuscation surrounds a paper that purports to scrutinize the entire University, from the largest department in the Office of the President to the budget for the smallest Student Activities Council group. The DP, on a daily basis, holds everyone else at the University to rigorous standards of conduct and behavior -- without making any attempt to report on its own organization or decisions. Fortunately for the DP and for Penn, there's an easy way out of this bind. The Daily Pennsylvanian needs a real ombudsman. And it's long overdue. The paper's bylaws say the executive editor serves as the ombudsman, or reader representative. That means the executive editor is supposed to hear reader complaints -- or compliments -- and present them to the rest of the staff, so the paper isn't put out from some sort of ivory tower, totally closed off from the rest of campus in the windowless "Pink Palace" at 40th and Walnut streets. In practice, though, this just doesn't work. Most executive editors only write about the paper when they're announcing some "bold new stroke" that the staff wants readers to get excited about. Three years ago, it was the launch of the DP's then-fledgling World Wide Web site; two years ago, the debut of color and a new design; this year and the last, plans to focus heavily on editorial content. But no executive editor -- or anyone from inside the paper's staff -- has written candidly and openly about flaws in the paper's coverage in the nearly four years I've been at Penn. Quite naturally, in fact. It would be practically impossible for anyone who spends 50 hours a week putting the paper out to take that crucial step away from its content required to analyze the paper and ask, "Is this the best they could have done?" In fact, I'm a good example of this problem. As the managing editor last year, a news editor the year before and a beat reporter for a year before that, no matter how much I tried I couldn't look at the DP's news stories with an entirely unbiased mind. And it took me until this semester to realize the full implications of that problem. Although in retrospect I wish I'd had an informed eye glancing over my shoulder, I still never thought much about an ombudsman until this semester -- the first one in three years where I'm only an occasional visitor to the DP's office. The way things are now, the entire campus suffers a disservice. No one voice can be counted on to hold the DP accountable -- regularly, within its own pages -- for what it prints. Similarly, no one outside the paper's staff gets a good understanding of the dynamics of what goes on every Sunday through Thursday night to put the paper out. On one hand, that's a shame, because you're missing some pretty interesting stuff. I've been involved in more than a few all-out screaming matches in the middle of the newsroom over how the paper should play a certain story -- what its angle should be, where it should run or whether it's even a story at all. There's often quite a bit of dissent within the DP over what it prints. And the evolution of big stories from when the idea comes up to when the papers hit the stands can be more convoluted than most people might imagine. But most importantly, readers miss out on the opportunity to see what would happen when the DP turns its staff's considerable reporting skills loose on itself. The paper never puts itself under the glare of the klieg lights it tries to shine all over everything else. Last February, for example, I approved an idea that seemed good at first glance, and never thought twice about it until it was too late. For a story about an alleged robber who had worked at Uni-Mart, the DP ran a photo of the counter where he used to work -- with a young black man working behind it. I thought the photo would be useful, because it would show exactly where in the store the robbery suspect had worked. In fact, what no one at the paper realized at the time was that the photo also seemed to imply that the young black man behind the counter --Ewho seemed to match the DP's description of the suspect -- was the alleged robber. He wasn't. My decision to run the photo was a terrible one, though I genuinely made it without thinking of the likely impact. I instantly regretted it, but I deserved to be called on it -- in the paper's pages, and by the newspaper itself, as well as by the many readers who correctly said the photo should never have run. But beyond pointing out the DP's faults, an ombudsman could also explain why the paper chose to take controversial stands. Last October, when the paper aggressively covered a student's charge that he'd been assaulted by three varsity football players, a lot of people wondered why the DP was making such a big deal out of it. In fact, the editors and I had reasons for the coverage. Briefly, we thought the alleged assailants were public figures, as football players, and so their role in the incident seemed newsworthy. If the paper had an ombudsman last year, I would have had to explain in print why I decided to pursue the story -- exactly the way reporters force University officials to explain their own decisions every day. Readers could have evaluated my rationale for themselves, because they would have known what it was. An independent ombudsman -- who knew the paper well and knew the people involved in decision-making -- would be able to call attention to questions like that, find out what or even whether the staff thought about the issue and report back to the rest of the University community. All in the pages of the DP itself. It would be as simple as dispatching one of the paper's 20 or so regular beat reporters to the ombudsman beat next year. By reading the paper carefully, paying attention to what gets printed -- and how -- and talking to a wide range of readers and sources all over campus, a DP ombudsman could really make a difference in how people look at the paper, for good or for bad. Only about 40 papers around the country have a regular, independent ombudsman to critique their content or report on news inside the organizations, but the ones that do include some of the best in the nation. The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and The Philadelphia Inquirer, as well as some excellent smaller papers, all recognize the need for the press to act as its own watchdog. Letters to the editor and "guest columns," of course, also help keep a paper in line, but it's a much bolder step toward true integrity when a newspaper can appoint someone who knows the organization to take a hard look at it on a regular basis. A regular, institutional critique on the Editorial page rings much more powerfully -- both in and out of a paper's walls -- than sporadic letters from people who may or may not know the whole story behind what they're complaining about.

https://www.thedp.com/article/1998/03/column_open_up_the_dp_newsroom

COLUMN: One eye witness who speaks out

(09/19/97 9:00am)

Adam Nichols, Guest Columnist Adam Nichols, Guest ColumnistFor the first time in my life, I picked up a newspaper and knew the words I was reading were wrong. The article ("Student cited after police shut down party," DP, 9/9/97) described the break-up of a party by University Police in which a student was cited for disorderly conduct. The incident occurred when police arrived, in the early morning hours of September 5, to shut down a party on Beige Block. The police claimed that a "slippery bottle fell and broke" as a police sergeant was pouring the contents of the a bottle to the side of the porch. Anyone aware of the laws of physics knows the shattering pattern of a glass bottle that is dropped from a given distance of only a few feet is much different than that of one thrown down with force. If this "slippery bottle" did "fall and break" then why didn't the sergeant apologize and volunteer to clean it up? Numerous students watched as this sergeant deliberately threw this bottle down onto the pile of rocks. He then proceeded to pick up another bottle when a concerned student informed him that someone could be hurt by the flying shards of glass. A multitude of broken glass still lies on the rocks to the side of the porch. Following this incident the police arrested a student for disorderly conduct. The detective commander used the expression "extremely resistant" in the DP article to describe the student's actions. Again, this description is simply not true. The student's actions were in no way characteristic of someone who was resisting arrest. The officers who pulled out their nightsticks and forcefully pushed the student onto one of the porch benches while attempting to handcuff him were the only ones acting in an "extreme" manner. While they were attempting to cuff him, the only things I heard coming from his mouth were, "Relax," and "Chill out." The force they used to cuff him was the most blatant abuse of power that I have ever witnessed. If their only goal was to take the student into custody, there was no reason to use their nightsticks, push him across the porch, and force him up against the bench. I do not argue that the student cited used vulgar language towards a police officer, as was noted in the DP article. However, I strongly disagree with the police's aggressive response. One thought that has remained in the forefront of my mind is the recent publicity of police brutality within the New York Police Department. The incident on Beige Block sheds light on how police can get away with excessive force by telling a different story to the media. My own feeling of helplessness still remains in regards to any real change in the police's mindset, but I do not feel that speaking out is pointless. As students, we have avenues and resources for incidents like this to be dealt with in a professional manner. This column will reach a wider audience than the people on the scene that morning and hopefully encourage other students to speak out. I also want to explain the steps I took so they will feel more confident in knowing what to do when they witness similar incidents. First, I talked to someone in the Office of the Vice Provost for University Life. They act as liaisons between the student body and various University divisions -- in this case, University Police. They advised me to file a formal complaint with the police and use the DP to respond to the article. In my conversations with police officers about the incidents, one stands out in particular. A female lieutenant, who was the commanding officer on the scene that morning, still sticks to the story that she saw the bottle slip out of the sergeant's hand. She claims to have seen this with her own eyes in plain view. This is the same incident where I saw this sergeant deliberately throw the bottle to the ground (Yes, I too saw this action with a clear point of view.) At the end of our conversation, she said she hoped I would not think twice about calling the police for help in the future. I have a lot to say on that issue but I'll limit it to just a few thoughts. No, I would not hesitate to call University Police because they are the only resource I have in this area of Philadelphia. However, I would like her to know I would not trust her to walk my grandmother across the street because I do not trust that she would be able to see oncoming traffic. I would also hope that none of the officers was on duty breaking up this party responded to my call because it is obvious my perception of their actions is not in line with their own views of proper procedure. I want to make sure their actions don't go unnoticed. I encourage anyone, even for a minor incident like this one, to report it to the University and file a complaint with the police so this morning's events do not begin to create a pattern of behavior that could have much larger ramifications. Please do not feel that speaking out is pointless. It is not. However, after my conversations with various officers, I feel extremely helpless as to justice being served and the police altering their behavior in the future.

https://www.thedp.com/article/1997/09/column_one_eye_witness_who_speaks_out

LETTERS: SPEC worked hard for Fling bands

(04/03/97 10:00am)

To the Editor: The claim that "SPEC needs to start looking for Fling bands earlier if they want to sign big-name bands" implies that we, as directors, have been either lazy or stupid. We have been neither. The ridiculous factual inaccuracies of the editorial show the DP has no idea about the process of setting up a national act concert. We would like to make it known that, while the DP or any student has a right to criticize the band choice, they do not have the right to criticize inaccurately our hard work or competence. This is not only insulting, it is just plain wrong. Our process began in September, the first week that school began, and yes we do work through a professional agent. We want to properly address the concerns of the student body and the obnoxious misrepresentations of The Daily Pennsylvanian. For now, we will suffice to say the DP has continued its legacy of problematic and inaccurate information. Barbara Burns College '97 SPEC Spring Fling Co-Director (4 signatures follow) u To the Editor: Where shall we begin? It is so obvious in their editorial on the Fling Concert the DP has absolutely no clue as to what they are talking about. There is an industry out there in music land that revolves around a thriving business market, driven by factors associated with many modern capitalistic markets. These are -- as I'm sure the DP doesn't understand -- factors such as supply, demand, monopolies, promoters, venues, repeat bookings, etc. While we will not take the time to explain the relevance and interaction of these industry drivers and their consequences, we will point out that we operate in the Philadelphia market under the influences of these factors and many others and enjoy our advantages and must deal with our disadvantages. We wanted A Tribe Called Quest and we were the only school to get them. We know what we're doing and how to get what we want if what we want is available. Not all bands are touring all the time! They actually have other things to do! And some bands that we may want are touring, but there is a thing called monopoly that exists and maybe if the DP thinks about it really hard you'll know what we're talking about -- maybe. We've been working on this show since the summer and if that's not early enough for you then you'll just have to get over it. Please refrain from trashing us, all we're trying to do is put on a concert that Penn students will enjoy and this year we have booked a band that almost everyone loves. The show is going to be incredible. If you don't want to come, we won't miss you. Allison Rosen Wharton '98 Betsy Pellegrini College '97 SPEC Concerts Co-Directors Support 'Take Back the Night' To the Editor: I am writing to commend your guest columnist Sapana Donde for her creative approach to making Take Back the Night as inclusive as possible. She and others on the Take Back The Night planning committee faced an enormous task in trying to unite students, staff, and faculty in support of sexual violence survivors. Most people at Penn agree sexual violence is wrong and must be prevented, but there is widespread disagreement over how to meet this goal. The debates about how to do it and who to include can be frustrating and even painful, but I believe that they are ultimately healthy and necessary debates. Only a hardy few, primarily student members of NOW and STAAR, have had the perseverance to move forward and take the risks which come with planning Take Back the Night. As the staff advisor to STAAR, I want to remind Penn students that STAAR is accepting applications from men and women who want to become facilitators in preventing rape and promoting healthy relationships. Applications are available in 310 Houston Hall. If men are wondering where they fit-in to the movement against sexual violence, let me point out that since STAAR was founded in 1989, over 50 male Penn students have made a difference at Penn as STAAR facilitators. Please join STAAR and support the work of Sapana and other women leaders on campus. Kurt Conklin Office of Health Education Baker is a good leader To the Editor: This is in response to Robert Glazer and Robert Fechner's letter to the editor. It has been my personal policy not to speak to the DP about issues concerning the InterFraternity Council. I have found the DP attempts sensationalism and often takes quotes out of context or completely misconceives them. However, IFC President Matt Baker does not have that luxury. He was elected by the presidents of the IFC to be our voice. When attempting to compare Baker to past IFC presidents, no previous president has had to deal with the "charging issue." For the past 40 years it has been passed down the line. Unfortunately, the University decided to press the issue now. Baker has done an exemplary job defending the Greeks and the Greek system while trying to work with the University. While it was not Glazer and Fechner's goal to berate or demean Baker they succeeded in not only that, but the berating and demeaning of the complete IFC Board. There are general meetings every other Wednesday. Each fraternity can send as many reps as they wish. Glazer and Fechner and any other Greek are more than welcome to come to discuss any issue they see fit. The only thing that the letter to the editor "Baker is not the only Greek voice" proved was their own ignorance of the situation. Adam Silfen College '98 Sigma Alpha Epsilon InterFraternity Council Vice President for Rush and Member Education

https://www.thedp.com/article/1997/04/letters_spec_worked_hard_for_fling_bands

LETTER: Some History

(09/17/92 9:00am)

The Daily Pennsylvanian, when reporting on the fact that the University had rescinded the Master's degree from a graduate student who had plagiarized the work in the thesis (DP 9/17/92), quoted Janice Madden as saying this was the first time a degree had been rescined by the University. Actually, she had said that it was the first one she knew of; but, in fact, there are some precedents. According to the Trustees' Minutes, a bachelor's degree in Economics, awarded to H. Sokolove in 1932, was withdrawn because of "charges owing." In 1766, Issac Hunt, who would have been granted a masters of arts degree, had it withdrawn because he wrote a "scurrilous" article. In 1918, Wilhelm II, His Imperial Majesty Friedrich, German Emperor and King of Prussia, had the honorary doctorate degree he had been granted in 1905 stricken from the roles. At the same time, the honorary doctorate degree granted in 1911 to Count Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, the German ambassador to the United States, was also rescinded. These actions were for "high crimes and misdemeanors and offenses against civilization and the humanities." (I thank Gail Pietrzyk, Public Service archivist, and Curtis Ayers, bibliographic assistant, for examining the Trustees' Minutes at my request.) What they did decide, on March 24, 1992, by a vote of 21 to zero with one abstention, was that they themselves did not wish to take photographs. This would occur only in the event that members of the University, who had been told that they were in violation of the Guidelines of Open Expression, subsequently refused to show their University identification -- itself a futher violation -- despite a warning that photographs or videotapes would be taken unless identification were presented. ROBERT DAVIES Emeritus Professor Molecular Biology

https://www.thedp.com/article/1992/09/letter_some_history

PennConnects