Letters to the editor, Feb. 3

Published: Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Updated: Friday, February 3, 2012

Senior vice chancellor for Academic Affairs responds to Housing, bedbug coverage

Your two front-page stories concerning bedbugs in the dorms disappointed me. You had the chance to cover an important and complex issue — a very big story in the limited footprint of student newspapers. This could have been your Pulitzer series, but instead you managed to look like a caricature of a high school newspaper. You had a chance to reveal the complexity of the real world of decision making — one of unexpected events, difficult choices, short and fast-changing timelines, differing perspectives, intractable problems, emotional and fiscal realities, motives and fealties, actions and their consequences. But you chose not to work hard enough to find and communicate those complexities. The main coverage was poorly crafted, and your thin reporting failed to explore the issue in depth or with careful attention to detail. Worse yet was the editorial, in which you used your superficial examination of the issue to call for the end of a person's long, deeply respected and highly successful career. Your readers are intelligent and sophisticated students. They actually want a chance to consider the complexity of the world around them. You missed a chance to use the power of the fourth estate to best purpose. And you embarrassed yourselves and your fine paper in the process.

I'm a college professor, and so I can't help but assign grades to student work. The main story gets a "C-" on these merits. The editorial gets an "F" and a suggestion that your team engage in significant self-reflection about your readiness to accept the responsibility of running a real newspaper.

Ellen Weissinger

Senior vice chancellor for Academic Affairs

DN coverage of bedbug situation shows lack of balance

The Daily Nebraskan has lost a good measure of my respect. I am appalled that my school newspaper has resorted to tabloid journalism. Regarding the Jan. 31 article concerning Housing and bedbugs on campus, the editorial staff clearly did not do their homework. The email correspondence published online with the article showed a simple miscommunication between the Selleck RA and her boss. There was no evidence at all of malfeasance, conspiracy, or even negligence by Housing's handling of bedbugs on campus.

To the contrary, the Feb. 1 report from RHA explained that Housing is going above and beyond to protect students' welfare and privacy. However, the DN's top story on that same day (Feb. 1) was an article full of conjecture and gossip about the situation that was distinctly biased to imply outrage was the correct reaction to the previous day's story.

On Jan 31, the DN editorial staff called for resignations from Housing officials for not doing their jobs. I think it is the editors who did not do their jobs to review stories and ensure quality journalism. At worst, they purposefully ignored the evidence in the form of published emails, and at best, they failed to think critically about the facts to find the truth of the matter. In either case, perhaps it is the Daily Nebraskan editorial staff that should be considering resignation.

Richard King

Junior computer science major

Geoff T.

Mon Feb 13 2012 17:17

Vice Chancellor Weissinger,

I have been critical of the Daily Nebraskan for a long time. For most of my time here as an undergraduate, I have been dismayed and discouraged by many cases of what I consider to be poor journalistic efforts - and when the DN's funding was on the chopping block in the last ASUN election, I encouraged my fellow students to vote "No" on continuing to pay this newspaper's bills. Please understand that I have never been a fan of the Daily Nebraskan.

That being said, I am appalled at your myopic view of the Daily Nebraskan's actions regarding the bedbug outbreak on campus. The university did everything in its power to avoid publicity and mitigate the situation. The actions taken by University Housing were entirely consistent with the "cover-up" narrative promulgated by the Daily Nebraskan. Yet when they were given a chance to defend themselves publicly, to explain their motives and justify their actions, the personnel involved played mum when the DN deliberately approached them to solicit their opinions.

It is your First Amendment right to criticize the Daily Nebraskan for telling only one side of the story, but your criticism appears fantastically boneheaded given that the Daily Nebraskan only had one side of the story to tell, and was turned down when it sought conflicting opinions to balance out the story.

If Ms. Gildersleeve or any of the individuals involved in this fiasco desires a defense, let them defend themselves! Let them write Letters to the Editor like yours (though hopefully more thought-out) and clear their names, if they deserve to be cleared! They have only damaged their reputation by silencing themselves; to rely on letters like yours is as cowardly as it is counterproductive.

Paul

Sat Feb 4 2012 12:35

"...the way they were treated lead [sic] the newspaper to believe it was a cover-up or at least a horribly mismanaged problem."

Patrick, you captured exactly the difference between professional and incompetent handling of an issue in that statement. The DN portrayed this story almost totally as if it was a cover-up. This exemplifies one of the biggest problems with mass media today, where writers publish trash that makes great headlines and sells newspapers at the expense of getting a legitimate balanced story that would probably be glanced at and not read by many people. I buy the story line that the bedbugs have been a mismanaged problem and there was a potentially valuable story from that, but calling it "horrible" mismanagement is way over the top.

I'd like to give the DN the benefit of the doubt (and I did when the story first broke), but both the staff editorial and Oranis' vulgar cartoon show malice on the DN's part.

But what does the reputation of the university matter if you can be the first to get the scoop, eh?

Anonymous

Sat Feb 4 2012 00:22

Completely agree with Andy and Jake. And @Paul- they asked for comment before an editorial ran. Before the cartoon ever ran. Before all of that. They gave the University their chance to make things known and the university was happy to keep their mouths shut.

Even if you don't agree with an editorial asking for the resignation of Ms. Gildersleeve, it is an editorial that represents the views of the newspaper staff. It is an opinion piece. If the University responded with their version of what they said happened, maybe the newspaper doesn't feel it has to hit out so hard with that editorial. But instead, the way they were treated lead the newspaper to believe it was a cover-up or at least a horribly mismanaged problem.

Overall, I'd grade these vice chancellor's comments as subpar. Adequate in the sense she took her time to write the newspaper that she feels has a "limited footprint" in today's world, but lacking in constructive feedback. For someone who has never been trained in the world of journalism, she sure seems to know everything about it, but rather than telling how they should have "delved deeper," she herself chooses to skim the surface and just say they weren't in-depth.

So please Ms. Weissinger, write back with your "in-depth" answer to what you wished they delved deeper upon. What questions should they have asked? What complexities are missing in this story? Tell us how you would have gotten a reluctant university to tell their side of the story. Please help this poor student newspaper understand and "accept the responsibility of running a newspaper."

I just wish you "chose to work hard enough" exploring these questions and providing feasible answers in the initial letter to the editor. You "missed your chance" to provide constructive feedback and I hope you take some time for self-reflection and realization that all your years of schooling did not keep you from embarrassing yourself in the eyes of this student.

Sincerely,

Patrick Breen
Senior News-Ed Major

Paul

Fri Feb 3 2012 21:45

Jake, are you really expecting anyone the DN is investigating to cooperate after their editorial that was demanding resignations? If Oranis published a vulgar cartoon comparing you to Nixon, would you be willing to treat him with respect? I sure wouldn't.

If the DN had not been so juvenile in their approach, they could be looking like true journalists instead of dolts.

Jake Meador

Fri Feb 3 2012 20:46

If housing wants their side of the story told, they should have time for a reporter. If they don't have time, they shouldn't complain when their side isn't told. And they definitely shouldn't write such a petulant letter as the one printed above. Andy Boyle's response is exactly right.

Andy Boyle

Fri Feb 3 2012 20:00

Ellen Weissinger,

You say this was a complex event that the Daily Nebraskan needed to look into, right? How exactly are they supposed to get all of the information if many of the key decision makers involved wouldn't even give the newspaper comment? To quote the first article: "Gernhart said she did not have time to talk to the Daily Nebraskan Monday and was also not allowed to comment. Zaborowski also declined to be interviewed."

So those are two of these folks involved in the difficult choices, differing perspectives, etc., yet they didn't feel the need to explain themselves in fuller detail so the Daily Nebraskan could walk its readers through these complexities. Instead the newspaper was required to rely on the reporting they did, which focused on the RA and all of the emails. The newspaper put all of the information they had from the emails on their website, allowing people to make their own judgments about the communication between housing and the RA about the bed bug situation. That's a pretty good job and, actually, helps readers a great deal.

The newspaper also did multiple follow-ups, trying to get more information because many of the main people involved at the university declined to comment to the newspaper. Where exactly do you expect this tick-tock, minute-by-minute account to come from? As most folks in our profession know, you work on developing those kinds of stories, they don't just happen. And the Daily Nebraskan has said they are trying to do just that by requesting emails and other public records.

And I've yet to read about anyone from housing saying the Daily Nebraskan got any facts wrong. As a working journalist and former Daily Nebraskan employee (and therefore super biased), I'd say they did a helluva job. And I'm not a professor, so I don't feel the need to grade their work as anything other than bitchin'.

Journalism Alum

Fri Feb 3 2012 19:55

The editorial was ill-advised, but the reporting on the main story was something the DN can be proud of. Weissinger is just doing a CYA.

Anonymous

Fri Feb 3 2012 13:02

AMEN to both responses.

A Student

Fri Feb 3 2012 12:55

These responses are perfect. They echo my thoughts exactly.

Student

Fri Feb 3 2012 10:53

Yes to these responses.