I dont want to sidetrack this discussion, but a related question to Richard: why have you not commented on the Crimson's presidential search story in the commencement issue, which seems to have new information and a slightly different interpretation than your own (for example, about just how far the Corp had gone with Cech)?
 

Could you post a link, please? And also, why do you ask?
 

"The Ascension of Faust"
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519220

This seems more complete and a more plausible account of the last weeks of the search than earlier reports, including yours in 02138. (I am not a Crimson editor.)
Do you agree?
 

I think it's a fine piece that fills in some of the gaps, particularly relating to the other candidates. I like the material on Gutman, Richards, et al. And good for them to get Bok on the record.

But as usual, the Crimson fails to give 02138 credit for breaking specific facts, such as the location of that Sunday night meeting in downtown Boston, or that Rubin was Faust's most aggressive questioner. Quite irritating.

I also think the authors were slightly spun about Cech; whatever some Harvard scientists may have felt about him, the job was his if he wanted it.

Mostly, though, I think the Crimson's story and my months-earlier one tell a similar story.
 

Rich,

Actually, it looks to me like they tell a completely different story, not just in tone but in facts. It is clear from their story that Faust was a top, if not the top candidate from the beginning.

The sources they use seem better informed. How come they are the ones being "spun" and not you, Rich? The information your sources appear much less reliable and much less detailed.
 

Well, that's your opinion, of course, though I'd be interested to hear what is so different; nothing in my piece suggested that Faust wasn't a leading candidate from the beginning. The Crimson and I both detail the reasons why two of the three internal candidates weren't suitable (though the Crimson says that the committee doubted Elena Kagan's intellectual "breadth and depth," which seems not quite right to me). We both detail other candidates dropping out. (The Crimson has some nice detail on this.) We both go into the negotiations with Cech.

In fact, re-reading my piece, I'm struck by how much the Crimson's reporting mirrors my own. I think this is because we both reported the same facts, but still, since I reported them months earlier, I do think a tip of the hat would be appropriate. The Crimson and I, however, have been through this before.

Your comments, and the fact that you've posted on this repeatedly over a period of time, suggest a hidden agenda; why don't you just come out with it, since you're anonymous anyway?
 

Richard, who covered the search while it was happening? There are your 'mirrors'.
 

Anyone doubting Elena Kagan's depth and breath should read the Commencement address she gave last thursday:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2007/06/kagan_2007_commencement.pdf

Contrast her remarks with any of the speeches given the same day by any of the other Harvard Deans. For example, this address from the Dean of the School of Education:

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2007/06/7_mccartney_speech.html
 

Anon 7:29--Well, no. Because the material in question hadn't actually been published until after the 02138 piece came out. So unless the Crimson was just holding back for some reason....
 

If you read between the lines, it might be suggested that Richard is implicitly accusing the Crimson of plagarising both his work and that of 02138.
 

No, I don't mean that. In journalism, these are gray areas. You don't get to footnote stuff, so often if there's a specific, revelatory fact reported by a single source journalists will mention the source: "The Washington Post reported today that..." That sort of thing. But there's no hard and fast rule about this. I try to err on the side of crediting people because, well, why not? I get, for example, an enormous amount of material from the Crimson, which is a fantastic resource, and I always try to acknowledge the work of Crimson journalists when I do that. (See the acknowledgements in Harvard Rules, for example.)

But different people have different takes on when such crediting is appropriate. A few months back, for example, I reported in 02138 that the Corporation had launched a review of the last presidential search and its methodology, and had concluded that the process was frontloaded, spending too much time considering implausible candidates and not enough time vetting the credible ones. Either weeks or months later, I can't remember which, the Crimson reported the same thing—a very specific fact that represented some hard news. I would have said, "as first reported in 02138," even if I had re-reported it myself. But not everyone feels the same way. Ditto for, say, the fact that the Crimson met with Drew Faust on Super Bowl Sunday in the offices of a Boston law firm whose managing partner was on the search committee. A couple months later, the Crimson also reported that tidbit. Again, I would have cited 02138. It's a very specific fact, a "scoop," if you will. But again, there are no hard and fast rules about when to credit the original source of such disclosures. So I wouldn't call it the best journalistic practice not to give credit, but I wouldn't call it plagiarism either.
 

And I know the Crimson folks will deny this, but I also think that they—and Marcella Bombardieri in the Globe—ought to credit the blog when it breaks news. SITD was the first place to report, for example, that the Hoxbys were leaving Harvard. Since both the Globe and the Crimson followed with a story a day later, IMHO, they should both have written sentences like, "News of their departure was first reported on the blog, 'Shots in the Dark.'" After all, I credit those news sources when they break stories. Why shouldn't the reverse be true? One may argue that, well, this is just a blog, it's not the same, I can post any time...but both those organizations have websites and can also post any time.

To people outside the journalism biz, this may all seem petty and picayune. But all of us work hard to get and break news, and it's a sign of professional respect to acknowledge the contributions of others.
 

Richard,

It would appear that the Crimson's article reaches quite different conclusions than your 02138 piece, though it obviously shares a basic framework that one would expect to see in any play-by-play of the search. A "similar story" it is not, however. Most notably, the Crimson piece seems to contradict your main thesis—that Cech was engaged in negotiations when he dropped out of the race. You ignore some fairly significant details in the piece, including Hanna Gray's testimony, the call between Cech and Bok, and the doubting scientists.

If you're so keen on tipping hats, why not give Marcella Bombardieri credit where it is due? You stated in your 02138 story that "Rubin questioned her aggressively." Weeks earlier, however, you'll notice that the Globe, reporting on Faust's final interview, wrote that "Rubin…questioned her aggressively during interviews." [http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/10/first_woman_is_picked_to_lead_harvard/ ]

The 7:29 anonymous poster has it right. From the outside, it appears that the Crimson—not your reporting "months earlier" on this blog or in 02138—uncovered most of the story of the search. If you believe that publications should credit each other for every detail (including the location of the downtown Boston interview), why didn't you credit the Crimson for first reporting on the perceptions about Kagan's administrative demeanor, Cech's support from Bowen and Gray, or Rubin's preference for an outsider? And why not tip the hat to the Globe for first reporting decisively that it was down to Cech and Faust?

Finally, if there were ever a clearer example of your article's reliance on previously published stories, here it is: You state in your 02138 piece that "Cech's withdrawal put the Corporation in a delicate position." The Crimson, weeks before, addressing the same topic: "The University now finds itself in a delicate position." [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516795]

Did you internalize that?

Your obsession with getting credit for small scoops only impairs the back-and-forth discussions that your blog claims to espouse. Why not eschew the hubris and discuss the Crimson piece on its merits?

Love the zen.
 

Ah, I remember you now—you made this same suggestion some months back. Who are you, anyway? Really, if you're going to say this kind of stuff, you ought to identify yourself.

The "delicate position" language is just silly. Frankly, it was an obvious point to make. I highly doubt that I internalized the two words from the Crimson, or even the point, but if I did, that surely wouldn't fit anyone's reasonable definition of plagiarism. And if I remember correctly, the Crimson and I actually then said somewhat different things. (But honestly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to look up articles and compare a single sentence.)

As for Marcella, sorry, no. I could tell you exactly what sources that detail about Bob Rubin came from, and they weren't in print; they had not yet been printed anywhere. You may be forgetting that a magazine article is actually reported weeks if not months before it sees print. I can't remember the exact timeline in this case, but again, I remember the sources, and I remember the satisfaction of hearing from those sources something that had not previously been printed.

The Crimson is credited four times in the 02138 article we're discussing. Looking over it, that seems about right to me in terms of what I reported and what the Crimson reported. SITD has never, that I'm aware of, been credited in a Crimson story.

Finally, if the Crimson piece truly suggests that Cech was not engaged in negotiations when he dropped out, then it is, simply, wrong. But I don't think it actually says that, does it?
 

"...the Crimson met with Drew Faust on Super Bowl Sunday in the offices of a Boston law firm whose managing partner was on the search committee."

Really, Rich? Tell us more. This is another sign of the administration's control over campus media.
 

Oh, for God's sake, grow up—it's 10 o'clock at night and I've been writing all day. Don't get all worked up over a mental lapse.
 

But you know, that's probably a sign that I should bid farewell for the evening. Until tomorrow, folks, and forgive me if I get frustrated sometimes. I wish only that the people who make serious criticisms on this board, of me or anyone else, would identify themselves; I think it helps the tenor of the discussion and contributes to a more reasoned and reasonable conversation. Night, night. RB.
 

Oh, heck, re-reading this thread, there's just one more thing that I can't help but comment on: Asking for credit for scoops is not "hubris." That's like saying to an academic that it's hubris for him/her to expect to be footnoted for singular material that comes from his/her work and is used elsewhere. And on this I think the Crimson folks will agree with me; they are adamant about wanting to be credited for scoops when they have broken them. (And there's plenty of proof of that in various places around this blog.) And you know what? They should be.

Okay, signing off for real now.
 

The M-Bomb reported the Rubin detail on February 10, the day before Faust's appointment. Your 02138 piece includes details from the Feb. 11 press conference, which appears to discredit your theory that your piece was prepared before the Rubin news broke.

The "satisfaction of hearing from those sources something that had not previously been printed" seems to be misplaced.
 

Sleep tight RB, and I couldn't agree more on your envoi. Couldn't we at least have some perching red-tailed hawks, nesting sparrows, or ground-feeding blue jays (no offence intended, SE, best of this blog)?
 

Sorry, but no—I was reporting the piece before Faust was chosen.
 

Thanks, Richard—I always admire your willingness to put your name to what you write.

Cheers, everyone. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and move on?
 

Sorry, no. If you had the time to add an entire paragraph like the one below to your piece, you surely had time to credit the Globe for its scoop. You can't just ignore published material and plow ahead with what you believe is a "scoop"...

On the afternoon of Sunday, February 11, Faust and the Corporation held a press conference at the Barker Center, home to various humanities offices. While the fellows looked on in approval, Faust declared that she was “deeply honored by the trust the governing boards have placed in me.” She added, “Our shared enterprise is to make Harvard’s future even more remarkable than its past.” As she explained, “I am a historian. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the past, and about how it shapes the future.”
 

Thought for the morning, Richard. Going back to the original question, what do you make of the CONTENT of the Crimson's story?

For example, you said earlier:

"Finally, if the Crimson piece truly suggests that Cech was not engaged in negotiations when he dropped out, then it is, simply, wrong. But I don't think it actually says that, does it?"

But consider what Hanna Holborn Gray told them:

Gray, the former Corporation member, said that Cech's decision came after he had contemplated his own "strengths and satisfactions" and determined that Howard Hughes was a better fit. In presidential searches, she said, candidates often don't fully consider the demands of the position until they realize they have a real chance of landing the job.

"It has to seem somewhat real before you start thinking that way," she said, adding that she did not believe the search committee had ever reached the negotiating stage with Cech.

So:

Whom should we trust about whether they reached negotiations, someone who advised Cech during the search and who is identifying herself publicly, or your one anonymous source? I've heard many theories from many people, but I think Hanna would know the truth here.
 

Did it never occur to you that a quote given publicly after the prior publication of embarrassing news might be merely an attempt to discredit the previous revelation? Why do you think HG went on the record, anyway?

Simply put, I stand by my reporting.
 

Good question, Rich. When else did Gray, who gave us Summers, go on the record in such matters? And how did she, no longer on the Corporation, know anything? Rubin, no?
 

I read this thread yesterday with some astonishment but no desire to join the fray. What troubles me is that a posting about whether Drew Faust is or is not a bold scholar was sidetracked immediately by an anonymous contributor who knew how to play to Richard's competitive side (his desire to scoop other reporters). True, one point of interest did emerge: the question whether Cech was already engaged in negotiations with Harvard when he publicly withdrew his name from candidacy for president. But we are still no closer to any meaningful discussion of Drew Faust's scholarship--or other aspects of her performance thus far that may deserve the epithet "bold."
I don't think the issue of who scooped whom should be allowed to dominate the main threads of this blog.
 

I am the poster who started this--yes the one who didn't want to "sidetrack this discussion." I did not have any agenda, and did not post again until now (contrary to what Richard seemed to think). I am not interested in whether the Crimson or Richard got what first, but I do think the points about the substance of the stories--the differences between the Crimson and Richard--are important and relevant. One of the main differences (as one or maybe two posters pointed out) is that on the Bradley account (which fits the conventional wisdom) the Corporation had virtually decided to offer the job to Cech when he backed out, but on the Crimson account, the Corporation had not decided even informally, was tilting back toward Faust because of some new opposition from scientists and increasing doubts about fundraising (Bok's phone call). Richard is sticking by his reporting, but my own sources which are pretty good suggest that the Crimson is closer to the truth.
 

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=517309

While some may read the blog with skepticism, Bradley’s predictions have at times proved uncannily prescient. Back in April of last year, when the presidential search was just beginning, Bradley wrote that “an early frontrunner” was a little-known dean presiding over a small research institution: Drew G. Faust.

In December, when the search committee presented a list of about 30 names to the alumni Board of Overseers, Bradley wrote, “If I had to bet right now, I’d put my money on Drew Faust.”

He’s been the first to report on many Harvard power-moves, including the abrupt departure of former Deputy Dean of the College Patricia O’Brien last July. And his contributors have leaked news of major University appointments days before they became official.
 

RB is right that the recent on the record statements from Bok and Gray are intended to smooth away the accurate earlier report that Faust was a second choice. Harvard is making a concerted effort to bolster her now that she is what they have. "Negotiations" has two meanings. Cech was likely informally offered the job and the formal "negotiations" of terms awaited his informal agreement to proceed. So they can truthfully say that they were not in the negotiation stage and Harvard all along maintained deniability. But they surely were ready to go with him. The fact that a few scientists might have kvetched means nothing. At the time, many more were dismayed at the possibility of a little-known Faust.
 

Thread reaching some satisfying specificity and closure. I like the synthesizing impulse of 4:18 pm.

Prof. Ryan's nice reminder about the swerve away from scholarly topics prompts me to note that I've made a broad post about the value of Substance at the tail end of the second Hoxby post below.

Here's hoping Pres. Faust can turn the school back toward its work of rigorous thought and TEACHING.

SE