The Ombudsman Comes Through
Posted on May 21st, 2007 in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »
Some of you will remember my suggestion here that it was particularly inappropriate for the K-School 4 to impinge on free speech given that they were also Crimson editors.
Now the paper’s ombudsman, Michael Kolber, reports that there are a lot more Crimson editors than you might think.
The Crimson currently claims that about 800 undergraduates are Crimson âeditors.â Thatâs because, until recently, it identified anyone who has ever joined the staff as an âeditor.â Joining the staff involves writing a certain number of stories (or taking photos or designing pages as the case may be) and attending a few seminars, steps fully one in eight undergrads has taken.
800 editors? No wonder the Crimson doesn’t worry about grade inflation. It’s a massive practitioner of title inflation. Kolber says that only about 200 to 275 of those folks “regularly contribute” to the paper. I’d be surprised if the real number is half that. (Also, 200-275 is a pretty broad range.)
But let’s be conservative and say that there are at least 600 Crimson “editors” floating around campus who don’t actually do anything for the paper.
As a former editor myself, I dislike this policy on the basis of accuracy in diction. These people are not “editors,” and the vast majority of them never were, even when they were active on the paper.
The Crimson has now decided to call them “inactive editors.” Better, but not good enough. The paper needs a new term for people who worked on it for a couple months, then quit. Contributor?
8 Responses
5/21/2007 9:20 am
This is ‘coming through’? Standing up for precise diction?
Trust me — I’m a much bigger fan of precise diction than the next guy. But the Crimson has much more important problems than this, and is a contributor as a result to much, much more important problems on the Harvard campus.
The ombudsman should pick bigger battles. And I say again: thank heaven he exists. Hopefully he’ll raise the stakes a bit next year to live up to the promise his first couple of sallies showed.
Standing Eagle
5/21/2007 12:25 pm
standing eagle, like what? i’m not even saying you’re wrong. just interested in what important problems on campus you think the crimson contributes to?
5/21/2007 1:44 pm
Richard,
I think you misunderstood the paper’s policy change. “Inactive editors” is not a term used in Crimson articles. It is in-house language used to differentiate between types of contributors.
As Mr. Kolber wrote, the paper has a new policy of scrapping the “editor” language all together in print.
Quoting Mr. Kolber:
…when quoting or referring to its own staffers, the paper will now identify them functionally, explaining what their role is in the paper, not just that they are âeditors.â
…..
âReaders,â wrote managing editor Javier C. Hernandez â08, in a staff memo announcing the change May 6, âare understandably puzzled when we explain that an âeditorâ does not necessarily edit or even contribute regularly to our newspaper.â
5/21/2007 1:50 pm
Good to know. In my humble defense, I did read that line, but didn’t realize that the “editor” language would be scrapped in print.
But why not scrap it entirely?
The vast majority of these people aren’t editors and never were…..
5/21/2007 4:59 pm
I believe that the language refers to the the fact that once you complete your comp, you are eligible to vote on staff editorials…
And yeah, Standing Eagle, like what?
5/21/2007 6:12 pm
At the Crimson specifically? Self-absorption stemming from the fact that the Crimson takes over the lives of those who run it beginning around the midpoint of freshman year. Personal self-satisfaction due to its generally high quality as an institution. Social exclusivity, de facto, because who has *time* for a social life that might include non-Crimson people?
The campus generally:
Student social life, especially the transition to sophomore year.
Dominance of extracurriculars over academic and residential life.
Moral stagnation and rampant civic ignorance at the IOP, the Crimson, and other places.
Failure to create space for un-genteel opinion-based speech among those who disagree with each other.
Lack of leadership in promulgating the role of the College as fosterer of a coherent experience for its students, and part of their moral education.
Plenty others.
SE
5/22/2007 11:34 am
They need to incentivize working for them. That’s why. The real editors know who they are, and can claim many more stories written on their resumes.
5/23/2007 8:28 am
Dear SE,
That’s still pretty conveniently vague.
“Moral stagnation and rampant civic ignorance at the IOP, the Crimson, and other places.”
Seriously?