Shots In The Dark: Bad Journalism, Part Deux

Thursday, February 23, 2024

Bad Journalism, Part Deux

Here's some interesting material* from the Crimson's report on Larry Summers' visit to Dunster House last night:

....last night bore a closer resemblance to a Grand Slam event. Harvard University Police Department provided security, checking Harvard identification at the door—and a group of five Crimson editors and former Crimson executives seated in the third row greeted Summers with the letters L-A-R-R-Y painted on their chests in red paint.

Crimson editors are painting Summers' name on their chests?

Um....Crimson folks? You people do realize how seriously your credibility has just been compromised, don't you? If you guys want to be taken seriously—and if you don't want the entire community to think you're in the tank for Summers—you need to explain what just happened.

Also—not that there's anything wrong with this—but you do realize how totally gay that is, don't you?

_________________________________________________________

* Thanks to the poster who brought this incident to my attention....

¶ 8:08 PM

Comments:

"Totally gay?" C'mon now Richard, this isn't seventh grade now :-)

# posted by Anonymous : 8:39 PM

Joke! And I don't even mean "gay" in the sexual sense...

# posted by richard : 8:43 PM

Richard, you're so right about the Crimson editorial board. And thank you for being so gracious about criticism.

# posted by Anonymous : 9:39 PM

For what it's worth, none are currently active members of the paper (a couple were executives from last year, the others are peripheral and were never very involved). The fact is that there are 300+ "Crimson editors" currently on campus because the Crimson comp is sort of ridiculous and lets anyone on who writes enough stories (or takes enough photos, or what have you). These aren't people who are writing the Crimson editorials on Summers. It looks bad, for sure, but worse than it actually is.

# posted by Anonymous : 10:00 PM

Of course, the Crimson didn't have to identify the five as "Crimson editors and former editors" unless the paper wanted to point out the relationship...it does bear explaining. Imagine the following: five WSJ editors and former editors at a meeting with Alan Greenspan and they spell out ...no, you just can't imagine it, can you?

# posted by Anonymous : 10:52 PM

They did it because it's Crimson policy to identify when people have Crimson affiliations to make sure that potential conflicts of interest etc are out in the open...

# posted by Anonymous : 11:17 PM

Yes, I've noticed that it's Crimson policy to do that. It's a good policy. But this was a dumb incident, and I think the paper owes a fuller explanation to its readers.

# posted by richard : 11:28 PM

It was not a dumb incident, but a telling incident.

# posted by Anonymous : 2:19 AM

A comment about all the pundit and conservative press coverage lionizing Summers -- overlooking his sheer lack of managerial competence -- and bashing the FAS faculty: Is each inflammatory critic willing to promise that his or her children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews will not apply to Harvard College (to be taught by all those terrible faculty members)? And is he or she willing to promise NOT to try to pull strings with the Harvard Admissions Office, something that the privileged in this country and beyond routinely do to try to get their kids into Harvard? Let's keep track of who puts their kids where their mouth is on this!

# posted by Anonymous : 9:24 AM

Richard, what IS your obsession with Harvard? Can't five undergrads paint their chests without eliciting the scrutiny of the whole country?

# posted by Anonymous : 11:59 AM

About Me