 "Photo:")
By now, many of you have likely read about The Daily Targum's decision not to run an article supposedly critical of the athletic department and the University's alleged role in the censorship of Targum content.
In the past week, articles appeared in The Star-Ledger, The Bergen Record, the Home News Tribune and Inside Higher Ed. I have also spoken on WCTC Radio last week and appeared on CBS Channel 2 News New York.
This controversy stems from changes the University made to the Investigative Reporting course the journalism department offers to shift the focus from on-campus to off-campus issues. The course was first offered as a way for a professional journalist to teach investigative reporting skills to journalism majors who would write articles with the possibility of publication in the Targum.
After the course was first offered last semester, the journalism department made changes. The University said, in effect, students in this class could not investigate on-campus issues for a grade.
But, contrary to what the media seemed to present, the Targum had no involvement in the decision to change the focus of the course. The reason we have and continue to partially fund it is because it teaches students how to pick a topic to investigate, conduct proper research and make it suitable for possible publication.
Certainly, students in the course can continue to investigate the University for publication. They will just have to do it separately from the course and work with our editors on it. Because we are an independent publishing company, the University has no control over what students want to run in the Targum.
In the media's pursuit to examine whether or not the University censored the students in the course, the onus should be placed on those who decided to make those changes.
Instead, we feel the Targum has been wrongly portrayed by virtually every major media outlet in the area. In the media's pursuit of a legitimate story of classroom censorship, our role in the events surrounding an isolated incident were misrepresented. In various sources we were wrongly portrayed as an unwitting contributor to University censorship.
What the media failed to report is that the Targum is an independent, student-run publication. Since our independence in 1980, the University administration has no involvement in either editorial or business decisions. Furthermore, we have no interest in protecting the University from legitimate criticisms.
How a Newspaper Makes the News
The controversy that arose is the result of the work of a student in the investigative reporting course who the media has portrayed as having been censored by the University.
Fraidy Reiss wrote an article of her choosing exploring the perks the athletics department offered to its student-athletes. While Reiss' work received an A+ in the course, when submitted to the Targum, our editors decided it needed further investigation - which Reiss was not willing to do.
The article reported on benefits given to athletes at the University but failed to properly and fairly present the difficulties of an athlete's lifestyle which makes these advantages necessary in the eyes of the athletic department.
Editors repeatedly told the reporter of the need for a more suitable context to present the facts, but she did not make the suggested changes. Because of this, we ultimately decided we could not present an article to our readers that we had serious questions about, and we were unwilling to jeopardize our reputation and our credibility by running it.
This very difficult decision did not come lightly and despite the controversy that has arisen, we still would not publish the story in the form presented to us.
Our decision to make changes to the article was not an issue of censorship. It was an issue of presenting a fair, well-balanced article on a potentially controversial subject - the essence of good journalism.
Freedom of the press is not always expressed through printing everything that comes to the attention of a newspaper. In fact, freedom of the press is often exhibited by a newspaper's ability to withhold the publication of any article that is, in the estimation of its top editors, not worth printing.
When it was made clear that we would not publish the final draft she provided us, Reiss submitted the text of the article as an advertisement with an inflammatory introduction attacking the Targum staff and myself.
There were two reasons we chose not to accept over $600 from her to run the advertisement. Most importantly, it set a precedent whereby any person with enough money could take out an ad attacking members of our staff. There is an appropriate avenue for criticism of the Targum - on the opinions page in the form of a commentary. No responsible newspaper would accept an advertisement that attacks its own staff members.
Secondly, the advertisement blurs the line between what is our own editorial content and what is paid for by a sponsor. The trouble with the advertisement is that it was confusing for our readers. The advertisement mimicked the Targum's style of column widths, font and section titles.
In the interest of transparency, we will link to the advertisement with the understanding it was a draft we did not support running in our paper, nor do we endorse. By placing it on the Web site, the Targum is not taking any responsibility for its content.
http://home.dailytargum.com/athletes-ad.gif
Targum's Investigations
of the University
The biggest criticism the Targum faced is that we were afraid to run the story. With only an abridged draft in hand, Reiss requested the Targum pay for the expenses of an Open Public Records request.
Despite the high costs, the Targum paid $239 in order to receive the grades of every student who took the two courses only open to athletes. Though inconclusive, Reiss did not include the results obtained in her story.
Because of this, it is fair to say we originally supported the idea of the story but not the final product. Last I checked, courage is putting your money where your mouth is. Targum did just that.
In the past six months alone, the Targum has been proactive in examining controversial aspects of the University and the athletics department. Throughout this past semester, we were presented with several articles that we ran pertaining to controversial issues such as the University's decision to raise tuition, the athletic department's policy toward the treatment of athletes under criminal prosecution, and the value the University places on teacher evaluations - the last of which was written by Reiss.
With regard to the athletics department, Targum ran several pieces demonstrating that as an independent newspaper, we have not been afraid to examine critical aspects of the athletics department when we felt it was warranted:
* Targum ran a three-part series investigating the athletics department's policies toward the treatment of gay athletes ("U. sets climate for gay athletes" by John Koblin, Nov. 11-13, 2004).
* We also ran an in-depth report exposing the athletes that have been prosecuted for criminal actions while attending the University ("Do sports affect overall U. image?" by Brent Johnson and Ryan Dunleavy, Dec. 13, 2004).
* On the opinions page, we ran an editorial criticizing the athletics department, various coaches, and the University president for not taking more action against football player Alfred Peterson for assaulting a female student ("Stop letting athletes slide," Feb. 15, 2005).
While we did receive a number of articles seeking publication from the Investigative Reporting course, several were turned away for reasons including a lack of value to our readers and a lack of quality required to run in our paper. We have high standards for all of our articles, and some of them written for the course did not meet our expectations.
Students in the course generated story ideas without input from Targum editors. After the first semester, we realized there were some problems with the way the course was set up. The main problem was that reporters were not writing for the Targum's readership, but instead were writing for satisfactory completion of the course. Therefore, they had different priorities and ideas for how to present their article than Targum editors.
Furthermore, Targum editors are trained from the start to present both sides of an issue for publication, and because we did not know the students in the investigative reporting course or their backgrounds, we did not have the opportunity to develop a trust or relationship necessary to allay our concerns about potential bias in certain articles.
In order to run a story, certain things need to be set. All sides of an issue must be explored and presented without bias. The more complex a story is, the more important a good working relationship is between a reporter and an editor.
Without having an established level of trust, it is hard to discern whether the reporter is leaving anything of value out, or if they are looking at a complex issue from multiple angles before coming to an appropriate conclusion.
A Matter of Opinion
Several people who have read the story have extended to us their opinion about its quality, some saying it was good enough for publication and others disagreeing. However, the concerns we had with the article were too great to allow the piece to run in its current manner and presentation. In the end, our uncertainty outweighed the perceived benefits of running the article.
Certainly on a piece like this, everyone will have an opinion. However, we were the ones who had to consider the potential damage this article could bring to our reputation and newspaper.
There were several parts of the article we felt were not fully developed or were presented inaccurately. After personally investigating the various perks presented in the article, our concerns were confirmed.
The University, in actuality, is not only open about the fact it offers athletes perks, but it is proud to offer them.
"We're not really being accused of perks. We readily acknowledge we do all of these things," John Wooding said. "We're proud of the things we do for our athletes."
Indeed, what Reiss presented as a condemnation of unfairness between athletes and students is what also could have beenbe interpreted by an objective eye as the byproduct of a department trying its best to ensure the academic success of those they are responsible and their best efforts to follow NCAA regulations.
In fact, the athletics department told Reiss this information on numerous occasions, but in the drafts provided to Targum, it was not included.
In speaking with the athletics department, it became apparent the perks presented in the article were not investigated fully. In an interview between myself and associate athletic directors John Wooding and Kate Hickey, they responded to the perks presented in the article and stated what they felt was missing.
The article points out how athletes have a "friend in the registrar's office." However, the athletics department counters they have a vested interest in making sure athletes are not deregistered.
If the University places a financial hold on an athlete's transcripts and the athlete is subsequently de-registered from classes, the athletics program faces the potential of being in violation of NCAA regulations. If that athlete participates in any practice or competition after being deregistered, the unknowing program may be forced to forfeit games.
Regarding tutors, Hickey said they are also required by NCAA regulations, which the University is in compliance with. It is true that the ratio of tutors to athletes is far higher than the ratio of tutors to students (1:25 as opposed to 1:594), which may surprise students, but the fact is, the NCAA said tutors can be made available through either the athletics department or the University. The number is far higher for athletes, but NCAA regulations allow it, Hickey said.
As for health benefits, Hickey used the example that if an athlete falls in a stairwell, they aren't covered by the University's insurance plan. Any injury sustained not specifically related to a sporting event is not covered, Hickey said.
"Training tables" are only vaguely explained in the article and it seems to insinuate that the NCAA only allows students to receive one training table per day but the athletics department offers them more than that.
The fact is athletes only receive one "training table," which is a meal with additional foods to meet the athletes' high caloric requirements, Hickey said. Any other meals offered to athletes are held in private but consist of the same foods or fewer foods than are available to students at the dining hall. Hickey cited fried chicken as a food available to students that would not be allowed to athletes.
The Importance
of Independence
The Daily Targum is a student-run, nonprofit independent publishing company. So what exactly does that mean? One word in that phrase is more important in its ramifications than most people know.
Independent: The Daily Targum first declared independence from Rutgers University in 1980. What does that mean when we are publishing articles? It means nobody from the administration ever contacts any editor on our staff to discuss the merits of running an article. It means if they want us to run something, they can send a press release as they do for every other publication that may be interested, and we decide whether to throw it in the trash or whether to pursue it.
As an independent newspaper, we do not receive funding from the administration. We receive it directly from the student body. What does that mean? It means the only group on campus we are beholden to is our very own readership. Not the administration, not the athletics department, but you, the students of this University. We have an obligation to cover what matters to you, not what anyone else wants us to put in print, and we print for your benefit what others would like us to hide.
Nick Sevilis is the Editor in Chief of the 137th Editorial Board of The Daily Targum. He is a Rutgers College senior majoring in political science.
Be the first to comment on this article!