Are you suggesting that The Crimson is biased in their coverage on this issue? Also, are the FAS faculty Faust's "political base" by choice, or by default, and if so, what impact might that have on her ability to lead and manage when compared to the likes of Bok, Summers, and Rudenstine?
 

Question 1: A little bit, yes.

Question 2: Excellent question, particularly its latter half. We'll see, won't we? I could argue it either way....
 

Isn't the number of faculty who show up to a meeting at least a rough indicator of faculty interest in that day's agenda? Everyone seemed to want to go to those meetings about Larry a year or two ago.
 

Agreed with 11:09. If they didn't note that attendance, they'd be remiss.

-Waiting Emu
 

I'm not saying it was wrong to note the atendance. I'm saying that in noting the attendance in the lede, and *contrasting it* with a prior meeting, also in the lede, the writer is making an implicit and unflattering comparison. It's a subtle thing, but I think the takeaway is (put crudely): the faculty doesn't care about teaching.

Flying Puppy
(aka Richard)
 

And that would be "attendance."
 

You are being wildly speculative. First, you are saying there is bias. Second, you are saying that bias came from Editorial. Neither is likely.

1) If you are a Crimson reporter covering an issue, you cannot vote on a staff ed on that subject. Nor can a commenter/editorial writer/voter on a specific subject ever cover that subject in the future.

2) An angle is not the same as bias. That comparison is obvious--it's not some long-ago Faculty meeting providing the baseline! Good reporting does have some analysis.

And what does "Wouldn't be the first time that's happened at the Crimson" refer to? Can you engage in an argument as opposed to ill-conceived potshots?

-Emu
 

Me, wildly speculative? Never. But you Crimson folks are a little over-the-top sometimes, you know. All this, oh, reporters can't vote on editorials...Hey! They're in the same building! They hang out with you! And they read the paper, presumably.

An angle is not the same as bias. Hmmm. Well, actually, that's exactly what an angle is. My point is that this particular angle/bias happens to correspond with Crimson editorials on the faculty's attendance level at FAS meetings....
 

Correlation is not causation, Richard. Plenty of news/editorial staffs are housed in the same buildings. So what? The same is true at plenty of professional publications. And "they READ the paper, presumably" (emphasis mine)? I read this to mean that you are noting that reporters may read staff editorials. Again, so what? Are you suggesting that reporters (Crimson or otherwise) who read any kind of commentary relevant to their coverage should be reassigned? That's inane.

I'm not on The Crimson. And, hmm, well, actually, an angle and bias are NOT the same. And you didn't answer my question about the alleged other time this happened at The Crimson. Typical RB to call the other party over-the-top or somesuch instead of directly addressing the question. Wouldn't be the first time that happened on SITD!

-Waiting Emu
 

WE,

I thought I could remember a specific incident I was thinking of, but my mind is failing me. So I will backtrack on that point.

But yes, an angle and a bias are exactly the same; only someone who is not honest about news coverage would deny this. They are editorial choices dependent upon personal feelings about what is important or interesting. The angle one chooses is a reflection and a consequence of one's personal bias.

But you may be a greater believer in objectivity than I am.
 

I find it rather funny that Richard is preaching about objectivity to the Crimson... bit of the "pot calling the kettle black" if you ask me.

Like it or not, the turnout at the meeting was negligible, and it would be interesting to get Drew Faust's read on that.
 

Come on, people—*of course* I don't believe in objectivity. I believe that objectivity is a charade, and that everyone should read critically, with an awareness that writers/reporters have all sorts of biases, and to deny that is just silly. I try to write intelligently, fairly, and accurately, and I hope I succeed, especially in fora where I'm writing more about facts I reported than here, on this blog, which is more explicitly opinion-based. But in none of my writing I would hardly claim to be objective. Every editorial decision I make is a reflection of my world view.

The Crimson does claim to be objective, however, so it's worth pointing out when the paper slips up. IMHO.

Look at comment #3, for example—"isn't the number of faculty who show up to a meeting..."

Right away, that person has decided that the most salient fact about the meeting is the number of people who came. (Coincidentally, an ongoing concern of the Crimson's.) I wasn't there, but if I were, I could probably give you a half dozen other angles you could write the story from. The angle chosen was a reflection of a personal bias. (Or, in this case, perhaps the Crimson's collective bias.) And that's okay—there's no shame in that. It's just something readers should be aware of.

But the Crimson folks do make me laugh a little—I swear, if I accused you guys of dropping a period, you'd react as if I'd compared you to Stalin.
 

Well, it is interesting that you suggest The Crimson's slipped up in this case, at least in your humble opinion, which by your own admission (if but implicitly), is biased. I think that's something your readers should be aware of when digesting your commentary on this particular issue.

The number of faculty who showed up, or rather, didn't show up, is a legitimate, pertinent question that The Crimson has rightfully chosen to pursue.

Maybe The Crimson could arrange for an open bar to be available at these meetings as a means to solicit better representation and involvement from the faculty.
 

Are "Crimson folks" anyone who sides with The Crimson when you criticize it?

An angle and a bias are NOT exactly the same. A bias has a negative connotation; an angle does not necessarily. An angle arises out of reporting; a bias, on the other hand, is there before the reporter takes note one or makes a phone call. (Perhaps we have merely semantic differences on this count; I won't presume to guess.)

You use the word "personal" to take the importance out of analysis. Especially as information becomes more and more readily available, we look to reporters to provide context and analysis. Yes, they must make choices to do that. Yes, on some level, their personal histories/backgrounds/feelings may have an impact on those choices. But writing "editorial choices dependent upon personal feelings about what is important or interesting" makes it seem as though NO reporting has gone into those choices. But that's not true. It's not simply personal bias--it's also professional expertise.

You wrote: "The angle one chooses is a reflection and a consequence of one's personal bias." That's reductive--it's a reflection of more than just that.

As for commenter #3, you have twisted his/her words. Nowhere did that person say that the MOST SALIENT fact was attendance. That person recognized attendance as ONE angle--and a relevant one.

As for The Crimson's claims to objectivity... The Crimson, like most professional newspapers in the U.S., strives to be as fair as humanly possible. I can't speak for them, but I've never seen them claim more than that. It's cheap and easy to condescend.

-Emu
 

An angle arises out of reporting. Hmmm. You think that Crimson reporter wasn't focused on attendance from the second she (I think it was a she) walked into that meeting yesterday?

An example: You could have easily argued that Drew Faust's presence there, and her perceived reactions, were far more important than the number of faculty present, because Faust is, as they say, the decider in this situation. But I'm not even sure Faust's presence was mentioned in the article. It certainly wasn't the lede. Why was the lede how many professors were there? Because the Crimson has a thing about attendance at faculty meetings.

Which is to say, an angle may arise from reporting, but it is still a function of what the reporter finds interesting or important, and that is still a function of the reporter's particular mindset, which cannot possibly be objective, unless the reporter is Vulcan.

I'm not condescending to the Crimson, Emu—you are. I take them seriously and criticize them when I think they screw up. (Invariably, they get all huffy about it, sometimes because they're right and I'm wrong, sometimes because it sucks to get criticized, especially if you're not used to it.) You make it sound as if it's unfair to hold them to high standards. Here I've issued a fairly mild criticism of the paper, and you've made it sound like I've accused them of being pederasts.

I am also struck by the fact that at the same time you make your case for objectivity, you say that we need reporters for more contextualizing and analysis. This points not towards objectivity but subjectivity, no matter how "professional" the reporter. Those "news analysis" pieces on the front page of the Times are not framed that way because they're so objective, but because they're too *opinionated* to be considered simple ""news."

I don't mean to sound as if I don't think reporting matters; I think it's crucial. And as I say, I emphasize accuracy, as best as I can get it, and fairness above all else. Fairness *especially* because I don't believe in objectivity—you have to be extra careful. But in every possible way, the choices a reporter makes reflect not just his or her training, but his or her personality, which is a composite of many irrational and rational things. Bias.
 

Actually, it was two reporters, one of whom—Samuel Jacobs—wrote entirely fairly about me. So here I go, biting the hands that feeds me. The other reporter was Johannah Cornblatt.
 

Here would be an interesting exercise for a journalism class: Go to a Harvard faculty meeting. Write six different ledes. Then ask six people in the class to argue why a particular lede is "right" and all the rest are "wrong." Then discuss why each person chose the lede that he or she did, and how that affects the concepts of objectivity and truth.

I'll guarantee you that you could poll the 120 professors there yesterday on what the most important thing about the meeting was, and you'd get at least five more answers than the one the Crimson wrote. The Crimson lede reflected the particular concerns not just of undergraduates—how will this affect me— but also of the Crimson itself: How many professors attended? It's been a consistent theme in the paper since Summers resigned.
 

RB wrote >>You think that Crimson reporter wasn't focused on attendance from the second she (I think it was a she) walked into that meeting yesterday?

Emu: Yes, it was two of them, and you are ASSUMING something by saying they were. If one were guessing, one could also guess that that focus had risen out of the beat of faculty reporting. That angle is a choice, but it is likely one informed at least in part by fact-gathering.

[snip so I'm not duplicating RB's entire msg]

RB also wrote: >>>An angle may arise from reporting, but it is still a function of what the reporter finds interesting or important, and that is still a function of the reporter's particular mindset, which cannot possibly be objective...

Emu says: We don't disagree here, Richard. However, I think you are undervaluing the expertise of beat reporters, and underestimating most readers' savvy. Most (!) readers have interacted with other humans and know their potential foibles and flaws. And they read with this knowledge.

RB writes: I'm not condescending to the Crimson, Emu—you are. [snip]

Emu: The "I have to laugh" comments are condescending. Isn't it better to take criticism somewhat seriously and try to engage with it? I wish SITD was more consistent on this (but I'll save those comments for elsewhere).

RB writes: You make it sound as if it's unfair to hold them to high standards. Here I've issued a fairly mild criticism of the paper, and you've made it sound like I've accused them of being pederasts.

Emu: "Make it sound." No, I didn't. In fact, I compared them to professional newspapers, and noted that they were following the same practices insofar as that is possible. And it's not a mild criticism. It's one thing to say that choosing to focus on faculty attendance isn't intellectually sound--and quite another to guess at who's hanging out with who at The Crimson. (Another way of saying that speculating at personal bias is usually an irresponsible waste of energy because there's usually no arbiter of that, and everyone is biased. The logic of an argument, however, is less of a moving target. Aiming at that is more useful, and your points are bound to be more provable.)

I don't disagree with you about analysis being subjective, but the connotation of the word bias (as it's used in relation to the media) has grown stronger than that. To me, it signifies something irrational and unreasonable. Something unjustifiable from any angle. And that is where I take issue with the criticism.

And yeah, the idea of journalism in general sliding towards analysis/opinion and away from straight reportage is not all that new/unique... and is reflected in professional papers and The Crimson. It's an interesting evolution.

-P. Waiting Emu
 

Just saw comment 17. Sure, that's a great exercise. Everyone's biased. Ok, so now that that is established...

Of COURSE you could write a different lede. This isn't math. But The Crimson's focus *can* be backed up by reporting. If you think another focus would be more sound... like Faust's presence... make an argument as to why it's more important. Which is sort of what you did at the end of your first post. I just think you could have done it purely on the basis of argument, as opposed to guessing at Cornblatt's and Jacobs's biases, which you have little way of proving.

That's basically your last two paragraphs without the stuff at the top. That's all.

-P. Waiting Emu
 

There was a more interesting meeting tonight at the School of Education. The students confronted the Dean on the lack of student and faculty diversity at that school...

Sitting at the meeting taking notes? one of Faust aides at Radcliffe... there will be much fallout from this 'conversation'.
 

Faculty show up at Faculty meetings in proportion to their perception of the efficacy of this use of their time rather than others. Nothing any professor said or did at that meeting would have the slightest impact on the future of teaching at Harvard, and they all knew that from reading the agenda. No votes were being taken. No preliminary reports were being discussed with the promise that the final report would be changed to reflect what people said at the meeting. It's an excellent report, but the report could be implemented administratively by any of the people in the room who currently have the authority to do so. If you had an article to get done or an admitted PhD candidate to woo, your time was far more reasonably spent that way than by showing up at this meeting.
Faculty meetings have become too formulaic as decision making has been largely removed from faculty hands. If there were more votes, more professors would show up to vote, but the administration takes the broadest possible view of what it can implement administratively rather than through explicit faculty authority. A lot of professors don't like that, but showing up at more voteless faculty meetings isn't a sensible way to respond to it.
So yes, the Crimson is taking cheap shots here. Just because they have to show up at these empty meetings doesn't mean everyone else has to.
 

Correction to the previous: "could NOT be implemented administratively...".
 

There was a Crimson reporter at the heated discussion that took place this afternoon between a large contingent of graduate students at the School of Education and their Dean.

to be continued...

~Emu
 

10:56 p.m. is not the original Emu, FYI...

I haven't seen any other posts under my name, but Standing Eagle, if that's you, I'm not amused!

(RB, note that the Emu has never before signed off with a tilde. I won't anonymously post any more.)
 

This post has been removed by the author.
 

From now on I will post with this! Goodbye, stinky impersonator...
 

One more note on a lengthy (but interesting) discussion. The Crimson reporters opened the story with what seemed to be most important within the broader context of faculty affairs. Let's consider that context:

-The task force has released a report on faculty teaching.
-As has been noted, there was no vote being taken, but rather faculty were coming to discuss the matter in a public forum.
-If relatively few faculty show up relative to previous meetings--and if this meeting's main purpose was for faculty to air their concerns about a report that focuses explicitly on the way they do their jobs--that seems to be the most salient point from the event.

In other words, that's the biggest NEWS that came out of yesterday's meeting.
 

Nice and concise, 12:25. Agreed.
 

Waiting Emu: are you Larry Summers?
 

Amusing how that one person always shows up with a comment about the real or perceived diversity troubles at GSE. Nevermind the topic, it's always the same old song and dance with that one. You do your subject a disservice with this dry, repetitious approach, GSE-poster. Try a little subtlety.
 

Better yet, try something, shall we say more colorful? or diverse?

Do you even know what these words mean at GSE?