The Crimson Breaks the Case
Posted on April 12th, 2007 in Uncategorized |
In the Crimson today, Johannah Cornblatt* and Daniel Schuker report that the list of potential deans has narrowed. The two then report the names they have: Jeremy Bloxham, John Huth, Theda Skocpol, Nancy Rosenblum, Barbara Grosz, Jeffrey Frieden, Robert Sampson, Stephen Kosslyn, Allan Brandt, and Michael Smith.
Those names look familiar.
Oh, waitâI know why. Because eight of the ten appeared on this blog two weeks agoâa few nominated by you readers, but a few, such as Bloxham, Huth, Michael Smith and Allan Brandt, were initially reported by yours truly. (And one, Skocpol, the Crimson kinda-sorta admits is still a candidate, despite the paper’s best efforts to knock her out of contention.)
Not that the Crimson bothers to mention that…..
Hey, Johannah and Daniel, I’m not asking you to cite this blog as gospel. On the other hand, when serious candidates for the deanship are reported on here two weeks before your story, I do think a tip of the hat is in order. With the exception of Skocpol, those names hadn’t publicly surfaced in the decanal context anywhere before they did here.
(What happened to that ombudsman of yours, anyway?)
Incidentally, Barbara Grosz is a close advisor to Drew Faust, part of her kitchen cabinet. But I think it’s unlikely that we’ll see a president and an FAS dean from Radcliffe…..
________________________________________________________________
*That insomnia takes its toll; I originally wrote Johannah Cornblatt’s name as “Goldblatt.” My apologies, Johannah.
34 Responses
I have no inside information on your writing, the Crimson’s, or the search itself, but unless there is more than a bit of irony in your tone, Richard, I’m a little worried.
Do tell.
Huh? Crimson was not trying to break the case. The point of the article was to bring readers up to date and to provide perspective, timeline, etc. These names are out there and have been out there for a while.
If you can show me that those names were “out there” before they were on this blog, then I’ll happily retract the item.
But hey, folks, it’s standard journalistic procedure to acknowledge past stories that have broken news on a particular story when you are following on the heels of that story.
In academic terms, it’s like a footnote.
Anyway, while the Crimson story may have provided timeline, perspective, etc., that wasn’t its point.
As the structure of the storyâwhich placed the names up highâindicates, the point of the story was to report the names of various decanal candidates.
So, if they were reported elsewhere first, it’s good form to acknowledge that. Pretty simple, really.
But the Crimson kids pretty clearly seem to have reported their list independently from you, and their list isn’t exactly the same as the one that came from you and a bunch of anonymous posters like me. (And let’s be honest, most of us were just taking shots in the dark, weren’t we?) Now, I sure would hope there’s some overlap between the two lists, wouldn’t you? And wouldn’t it be a sad day for journalism if the Crimson had relied entirely on postings that could have been made by absolutely anyone to assemble the leading names for the search? From the looks of their story, though, that’s surely not the case.
Can we stop referring to them as the “Crimson kids”? They don’t think of themselves that way, and it suggests a lowered standardâwhich is not, I’m sure, the standard to which they want to be held. When the Crimson asks for access from Mass Hall or the Corporation or anyone else, they want to be treated as professionals, so we and they should be consistent about that.
As for the namesâyou’ll note that in the post, I distinguished between the ones volunteered by posters and the ones put forward by me. Partly to give credit to you posters, partly because I had done actual reporting on the ones I put forward, whereas I couldn’t vouch for the ones other people proposed.
Note, for example, that Bloxham and Huth were my first candidates (after Skocpol). Two weeks later, they are also the Crimson’s first candidates.
I recognize that a blog entry is not quite the same as a Times story âalthough in regard to those names listed above, the reporting was just as thorough, if not more. (The Times being a fallible institution.)
Nor am I suggesting that the Crimson should have “relied entirely” on this blog.
But the fact is, 8 of the ten names were publicly discussed in this space two weeks before the Crimson published them as if they were being publicly noted for the first time, and that’s just not good journalism.
You might want to check the spelling on Johannah’s last name.
I’m sorry Richard, but if I were you, I wouldn’t want to cultivate an image of being the “Matt Drudge of Higher Education,” at least as it relates to Harvard…
… I guess that’s better than being the “Don Imus of Higher Education,” but I digress.
The issue shouldn’t be about getting the scoop or beating one’s chest about it, it should be about getting the story and getting it right. If it turns out that both you and the Crimson are doing this, then the credit should go to the both of you, without the unnecessary baiting, snarky antagonisms, or suggestions that The Crimson is sourcing you without acknowledging it.
I imagine we thought you were just taking informed guesses, when you lead with Bloxham and Huth. Was it clear that there was ‘reporting’ behind them?
That’s the real gray area here, with this blog-reporting v. informed speculation.
Richard,
This blog is an incredible valuable source for Harvard but your sense of your own currency is widely inflated.
Crimson reporters obviously read your posts (they might even be the only ones, plus the occasional Richard Thomas), but you can’t really be serious about this.
SITD is a watering hole, it is not a source. When you break news, The Crimson gives you credit, as they did in the profile of this blog.
But posting pictures of professors does not reporting make.
And it’s because of the gray area that I wouldn’t expect a definitive attribution from the Crimsonâthis is new ground we’re forging hereâbut I do think a line saying something like, “Several of these names were first discussed on a Harvard-related blog…” would have been appropriate.
I love it when Crimson folks get bitchy!
My sense of self is hardly inflated, trust me. This is just a humble blog, written over strong coffee in the wee hours of the morning, which sometimes leads me to make egregious mistakes, like my misspelling of Johannah Cornblatt’s name.
And yet…given that 8 of the ten names which came up on this blog were the names reported in the Crimson piece, well, that can’t just be all luck.
In fact, just for the sake of argument…why exactly was posting the pictures of those professors (at least the four that I suggested)not reporting? Okay, I didn’t name any sources. But then again, neither did the Crimson. I didn’t provide “the context or timeline,” but does that make a qualitative difference? Are the differences meaningful or just cosmetic?
I’m not asking rhetoricallyâI actually think it’s an interesting question.
And for what it’s worth, I do think that simply posting pictures can be “reporting”âthey obviously weren’t randomly chosen, were they?
This is really ridiculous, Richard. It’s one thing for The Crimson to give you credit if you had written a story saying that a list of names had been submitted to Faust. Or that at a meeting on X date the search committee had discussed 3 people. But writing on your blog that these were some names floating around? Totally unsourced? You want credit from The Crimson because you tossed out a couple names that you had been hearing? They weren’t “first discussed” on a Harvard-related blog. These names are in the air, people are talking about them, and the crimson’s story on the names they’ve been hearing doesn’t need to credit some random post by you that talks about names you’ve been hearing.
Shots in the Dark, totally unsourced? Huh. Kinda like the Crimson’s story, which doesn’t use a single named source? Or like the Crimson pieces on Theda Skocpol, which was also based on anonymous sources?
Don’t get me wrong, we all have to use anonymous sources sometime. But these are murky waters, my friends, and the dividing lines are not so clear as some might think.
In fact, one could argue that the Crimson’s lack of identified sources suggests even more that it should credit SITD, given that this is the only place where these people were *publicly* named, and that at least one person (moi) had put his name to a suggestion. (Sam Spektor also, I believe.)
And to the anon who says this:
âIt’s one thing for The Crimson to give you credit if you had written a story saying that a list of names had been submitted to Faust. Or that at a meeting on X date the search committee had discussed 3 people. But writing on your blog that these were some names floating around?â
Of course, it would also be one thing if the Crimson itself had said that a list of names was submitted to Faust, or that the search committee had discussed 3 people. But it doesn’tâit says Faust is “narrowing her list.” Which is pretty much exactly what I said…two weeks ago. Especially when you consider that it’s obviously not coming from Faust, who, as we all know, doesn’t give much away.
Re your comment in this post about Barbara Grosz: Theda Skocpol holds the analogous position at Radcliffe to Grosz, as senior advisor for the social sciences. But you’ve never suggested that this might disqualify Skocpol as dean, as you do for Grosz. Why is holding a position at Radcliffe a disqualification for one but not the other?
Also re your post on Faust and fundraising, which you admit might be “paranoid”: Yes, it is. You really seem to have it in for Faust. Couldn’t possibly be a bit of gender bias creeping in, could it?
And finallyâbecause I really do have some work to doâfor all that you can say about Matt Drudge, he was a pioneer in the democratization of information. Matt has a tabloid sensibility, and sometimes that’s good and sometimes that isn’t. But let’s not get all snooty about him, shall we? It’s much more interesting to think what the Drudge Reportâwhich has a real, significant place in the history of the Internetâmeant than to make snippy little characterizations. Harvard people in particular ought to be more thoughtful than that.
Just for the record, I have nothing against Faust and I look forward to her presidency with enormous interest. I will, however, raise the same hard questions about her that I would any Harvard president of either gender. Do I think fundraising is going to be a challenge for her? Absolutely. Do I start to wonder when people who are traditionally very hard to get ahold of start speaking to the Crimson on the record? Yup.
Either way, time will tell.
Richard aka Willie Loman:
Attention has been paid.
I think you need some rest.
Start again tomorrow.
Your loyal fans.
I think all that can be said about this post and the ensuing chain of comments is, Gee whiz.
I feel the same way! I mean, holy cowâto quote a great manâit’s even inspired someone to cite Arthur Miller.
To me, this is fairly simple: When a Harvard-related website mentions eight people who are decanal candidates, seven of whom are being publicly named for the first time, and two weeks later the Crimson does a story listing all seven of those people…well, yes, attention must be paid.
It’s not personal, folks. It’s not about my ego (come on, read these postsâyou really think this blog is good for my ego?), or my feelings about anyone who writes for the Crimson.* It’s just about what’s good journalism. That’s why I take your suggestions and criticisms seriously, and that’s why it disappoints me when Crimsonites (et al) so reflexively rise up to say, How dare you?
____________________________
*Frankly, I’ve liked everyone I’ve ever met who wrote for the Crimson, with the exception of one woman who was quite snide about me in print for no apparent reason. And that’s 25 years of knowing Crimsonites…
“Shots in the Dark, totally unsourced? Huh. Kinda like the Crimson’s story, which doesn’t use a single named source? Or like the Crimson pieces on Theda Skocpol, which was also based on anonymous sources?” - Richard Bradley
Correct me if I’m wrong Richard, but didn’t your recent article on Drew Faust (”The Search for Harvard’s Next Leader”)in 02138 feature all of one named source, instead, relying almost entirely on anonymous sources for purposes of this particular piece?
My point was not an attack on anonymous sources. It was to suggest that Shots in the Dark being apparently “unsourced” was not substantially different from the Crimsonâor me, in other foraâusing anonymous sources. The boundaries we’re talking about are not as hard and fast as the previous poster had suggested.
I thought the point was clear, but maybe not.
In fact, you’ll note that in the *very next sentence*, I said, “Don’t get me wrong, we all have to use anonymous sources….”
Let’s return the discussion to FAS dean search, even as we tip hats to both SITD and the Crimson, which are 2 very different operations. SITD is great collecting point for gossip, orchestrated by well-informed writer with really good judgment. Crimson cannot and should not report on hourly basis about names emerging. Their piece was informative, judicious, and shrewd, based on lots of sources. Of course, they too rely on gossip and there are dozens of “gossipy” sources in addition to the official leads they get.
The Crimson story didn’t just list names, as you do in your “summary” that started this thread. They established some sense of priority among the candidates, tentative though it may be. So it’s not really this 7 or 8 out of 10 figure you cite that’s central to their story.
More importantly, shouldn’t we be talking about the candidates and the search itself?
To the last poster: Both the Crimson and I ranked Bloxham and Huth first. But never mind. Back to the dean search it is.
We now have a fair amount of knowledge gathered by SITD and the Crimson.
Bloxham
Huth
Skocpol
Sampson
Grosz
Frieden
Brandt
Kosslyn
Smith
Rosenblum
Who likes whom, and why?
Anon 12:18
Barbara Gross is an administrator -a Dean—at Radcliffe but not currently in that capacity at FAS. Skocpol is an adviser to Radcliffe and a Dean in FAS. That’s a key difference. But these two aside, how about the quotes from Rudenstine in the Crimson emphasizing the critical importance of having a “cheerful” Dean? Is this a comedy show or the world’s greatest university? How about competence? The article stresses that the centrality of “personality” as the key variable—and no doubt this comes from the nervous nellies in u-hall worried about their employment longevity. I hope Faust isnt listening to the pusilanimous Rudenstine or she will wind up having as empty a presidency of harvard as he did.
I’m for moving on to candidate discussion as well, but for the record, I think Richard is right-the key fact being that he separated his three names as names he had heard from his sources and the Crimson agreed with his top two. Regardless of how much more research they may or may not have done, once they settled on the same names they should have mentioned SITD-if for no other reason than we all know they certainly read these posts. They don’t mention it because they don’t want to mention their competition. And they want to imply a higher standard. But, again, as all SITD readers were bound to notice this omission, they end up looking like the children they wish not to be treated like.
Let’s keep it constructive, eh, folks?
Richard,
OK, this is meant to be constructive. I like this blog and read it all the time and offer this grumpy comment in the hope of improving it.
What are you hoping to accomplish by trumpeting the fact that you got the story first (as you did yesterday with Andrew Sullivan and today with the Crimson)? Whenever you do this, the pettiness of your victory dance drags the conversation off topic. Acknowledging that the others sometimes have been first, and stating that [even though you won] you don’t view this as a competition, that sort of thing doesn’t change the appearance of scorekeeping. It’s childish and pointless. We’re reading your blog so we can find out about stuff; you don’t need to tell us when or whether other blogs we’re not reading learned the same stuff, or whether you are pleased with yourself as a result.
Well, with Andrew, it was really just a jokeâhe’s an old friend. It amused me that we had seized upon the exact same thing and phrased it the exact same way.
But vis-a-vis the Crimson, it’s really more about the business of journalism. I don’t assume that most readers of this blog are journalists, so let me again analogize: If you wrote an academic paper that had some specific breakthrough, and someone wrote another academic paper that used it but didn’t cite it, why would anyone think you were inappropriate to raise that lack of citation?
Now, don’t get me wrong; I have no doubt that the Crimson reporters had principled reasons for not referencing the blog. It’s not a question of plagiarism or anything like that, but more one ofâto continue in the analogyâwhen it’s appropriate to footnote, as it were.
I think doing so in this case is a matter of good journalism, but as one poster (eadw?) pointed out, the blog’s a little bit of a gray area; reasonable people can disagree.
Nonetheless, I do believe that it would have been journalistically appropriate to give the blog some credit, and as a matter of general principle, I think the Crimson would agree with me; they are certainly concerned when they feel they don’t get credit for scoops, such as their story that Drew Faust had been chosen president. When they felt that I hadn’t given them specific and adequate credit for that, they were quick to point it outâand if they felt they were right, they had absolutely every reason to do so. I don’t see why I can’t reciprocate.
Let me emphasize that none of this is personal. I like and respect the Crimson reporters, and fully expect to be working for them some day.
Nonetheless, if I think they’ve screwed up on something, I’m going to say so. If Harvard had journalism classes, then a professor or TA or classmate would do the same. It’s really no different, except there’s a blog and not a blackboard on which to make the point.
Observer to Richard:
A serious blog making serious points that are persuasive because of the logic of explicitly stated arguments ought to be cited. Frequently you and your posters succeed in that regard.
My confusion about this thread is that your list of dean candidates descended into abject humor without any clear indication as to where to draw the line. Summers and Clinton with an explicit joke? No way. Charles Rosenberg “in bed with the President”? I don’t think so. Allan Brandt, and STD’s? Who’s he, what’s he done administratively, and isn’t that just another joke? Kinda seems likely. And so on up the list toward potentially serious candidates like Dominguez and Rosenblum with baggage of their own, whose supporters might have the motivation and connections to be manipulating the Crimson.
It seems to me, Richard, that if, for example, Allan Brandt is primarily an opportunity for a joke on your list, and he appears on the Crimson’s, then the kids start to look silly.
How about starting a new thread with no jokes, and a sober assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of specific individuals based on things that posters claim to have written to Drew Faust? Her mind is where the substance of the dean search is, or should be, taking place.
Observer,
I think that’s a fair point. Let’s see what we can do to start a new thread….
Richard