Taking Swarthmore Journalism to Task
This column arose out of a discussion about another Gazette column. As with all columns, this piece represents the viewpoints of its authors alone and is not necessarily representative of the viewpoint of the Daily Gazette or any of its staff.
This Thursday, the normally quiet distribution of the Phoenix managed to solicit more groans than usual from many students. This time, the offending article was an editorial and accompanying cover which stated that, in the opinion of the Phoenix’s editorial staff, the “multitude” of dissenting voices has “diluted the power of protest,” both at a national level and here at Swarthmore. Activists have much to say in response to this criticism, especially since it stems from a crucial misunderstanding of what could be called the whole point of solidarity: activist coalition building is at its most effective when protesters acknowledge the interrelatedness of the injustices they protest. Activists send the message that there are no single issues or quick fixes, because the evils perpetrated by the unjust global order are systematic.
The editors make a flawed point about national dissent, but what they hint at towards the end of their article proves far more troubling: the Phoenix believes that at Swarthmore, we have cordoned ourselves off into rival groups that communicate poorly with one another and achieve no significant victories. If, indeed, the Swarthmore community seems politically splintered, the Phoenix ought to shoulder much of the blame itself, since it has proven chronically unable to foster an inclusive dialogue about the politicization of life at Swarthmore.
Flipping through this week’s issue of the Phoenix, we can find a fluff piece about the Cygnet—a book we all know about and use anyway, and frankly, isn’t that important—and a fashion advice column that condescends to men that they ought to take some advice from girls and care about their appearance. It’s almost half a page of print space wasted to perpetuate a boring stereotype of men as oafish slobs and women as in touch with how to look good. Judging by some of the crimes against fashion that we’ve witnessed during our time at Swarthmore, of which members of every gender have been implicated, this stereotype holds no water here.
Nowhere could you find any dissenting voice published in the Phoenix, which limits the scope of its political discussions to the occasional column or editorial piece weighing in on some national policy issue. For the most part, such journalism interests the author and the minority of the student body who cares deeply about that issue, but it gives no real life to a culture of discussion here, since most students get their perspectives on national issues from national journalistic outlets (which makes sense).
This leaves a vacuum for the kind of journalism that no one at Swarthmore seems interested in doing: committed political journalism that does not shrink from taking stands on issues related to our daily lives here at Swarthmore. Recent political coverage by both the Phoenix and the Daily Gazette betrays their failure to do this kind of journalism. We can look to coverage of two recent controversies, namely the NOTA campaign from last spring, and the return of Coke products to campus dining services facilities this year, as evidence of this fact.
In the case of the NOTA campaign, the Phoenix published an editorial that offered its opinion on the campaign and what it understood as the campaign’s goals, but complained that the “underground” nature of the campaign made gathering information about the goals of students supporting NOTA particularly difficult. There’s no excuse for this excuse: at a campus as small as Swarthmore’s, the people supporting NOTA weren’t limited to the unspecified members of “the IC and BCC communities,” but your friends, and people on your teams and in your classes. They’re not hard to find. Why did the Phoenix have such a hard time finding them?
This fall, coverage of the return of Coke products rushed to cast the event as a failure for activism at Swarthmore: the Daily Gazette contributed, publishing an article documenting The Unkicking of Coke and Peter Liebenson’s laugh rollercoaster called Yay, We Kicked Coke You Guys!. The Phoenix’s news coverage was similar. To us, campus journalists seemed to have colossally missed the point: the larger victory for student protest to emerge from the decision to bring Coke back to campus was the College’s commitment to drafting an ethical purchasing policy. The nonexistence of such a policy was a major obstacle for activists working on the original Kick Coke campaign. In the future, activists hoping to stage a similar campaign against an unethical company contracted by the College will have an institutional policy to which they can appeal. This crucial detail was treated in Swarthmore publications’ coverage as a minor note and buried far below the headlines.
In publishing shoddy pieces like these, or, more frequently, settling for dull regurgitations of institutional viewpoints and a seemingly endless parade of “opinion” pieces on such ubiquitous “Swattie” topics such as the quality of Sharples food, ambivalence about Pub Nite’s “beer-soaked” sing-alongs, and the “awkwardness” of Paces parties, journalism here misses a rare opportunity to engage broad swathes of the community in discussions about important issues that affect us all. We believe that this failure is a symptom of a larger problem within the student body: we have begun to take our journalism for granted. Few students derive much pleasure from reading the majority of the journalism produced on this campus (many students simply don’t read any of it), and even fewer take an active part in the production of journalism. In this state of disrepair, journalism stagnates. It’s time to ask what journalism can do better, and that begins with an examination of the criticisms we make of journalism here.
Since the Phoenix and the Gazette shouldn’t spill more ink on coverage of national issues that would be better left to national journalistic institutions, and since they are student-run publications, we expect the publications to take these factors into account in reviewing their journalistic practices: aware that the administration manages the information that it passes along to students, journalists at Swarthmore should focus on pushing the limits of what they can learn about the institutional workings of the college. The safest environment for investigative and critical journalism we will ever experience is at a setting like Swarthmore, where our needs are generally met and our intellectual pursuits supported. Why, then, is such journalism so absent?
To those who say that Swarthmore does not produce enough news to provide content for truly interesting and, dare we say, exciting journalism, we challenge you: journalism at Swarthmore remains the province of relatively limited number of voices, meaning a limited number of experiences, and a limited number of perspectives. To that end, we hope, in writing this column, not only to draw attention to these concerns, but to put, so to speak, our money where our mouth is in terms of journalism at Swarthmore: as we offer our opinions on discussions and controversies that spring up throughout the semester, we hope, also, to cover or to expand coverage of some stories that other journalistic outlets here leave out. We welcome contributions of ideas, suggestions, and stories on that front.
Print
Email
#1: 10/5/2009 at 3:08 a.m.
"Why did the Phoenix have such a hard time finding them?"
Because they chose to remain anonymous, and not run a new candidate (write-in, much?). You don't think either publication would have been happy to publish a column from them if they had anything constructive to offer (like, say, an actual candidate that we could write-in for)? It's not the Phoenix's responsibility to track down a group of people if nobody really cares what they have to say. Sure, it's a small campus, but that doesn't change the fact that I STILL haven't figured out who the Pink Narcissus is...
"the larger victory for student protest to emerge from the decision to bring Coke back to campus was the College’s commitment to drafting an ethical purchasing policy."
By larger victory for student protest, do you mean PR move to make the Kick Coke fiasco look less ridiculous? If so, I agree. Yay, more committees and policies!
"Peter Liebenson’s laugh rollercoaster"
Thank you.
P.S. I wish you the best of luck. Just know that I will take credit for any meaningful discourse that you bring to the campus.
— Peter '11 | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#2: 10/5/2009 at 8:16 a.m.
Some of our lack of journalistic creativity and impulse is that factor of "who really gives a fuck?" It has almost become a mentality that neither publication has anything of value to say, and are really a waste of time and money. So why bother a) reading and even more so b) contributing to the discourse of things that waste time? As a sophomore, I wrote a travel column on my studies abroad in Argentina. I hoped and still hope that students found my piece of value and insight, but even that piece was plagued by the ideas of some that my column held no relevance for the campus, because it wasn't about restaurant life in New York...http://daily.swarthmore.edu/2008/2/29/tates-of-buenos-aires-from-a-beginner/
So what is of immediately utility and purpose to the Swarthmore community? It once again depends upon the willingness and eagerness of those who write. It's a Catch 22, we don't want anyone to feel obligated to do anything, but we often suffer when most people opt out, and so discussions arise as to how to engage people in journalistic discourse.
That's my two cents:
Stephanie Appiah '10
— Stephanie Appiah | Registered, Swarthmore
#3: 10/5/2009 at 8:23 a.m.
The Phoenix ran a piece on the Lang Center interns and the creation of the ethical purchasing guidelines in addition to the general Coke article.
— In the interest of accuracy | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#4: 10/5/2009 at 8:25 a.m.
'seemingly endless parade of “opinion” pieces on such ubiquitous “Swattie” topics such as the quality of Sharples food, ambivalence about Pub Nite’s “beer-soaked” sing-alongs, and the “awkwardness” of Paces parties'
It is difficult to find something groundbreaking to write about every week. Let's not take ourselves so terribly seriously.
— Maia Gerlinger '12, writer of fluff | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#5: 10/5/2009 at 8:33 a.m.
Also: Like any college activity, college journalism is intended to benefit the participants just as much (if not more) than the audience. Those who join orchestra do it for their own satisfaction, and in the hopes that it will help them further develop their musical technique; those who do college journalism are perhaps aware that they are not real journalists, but writing, like everything else, needs practice, and it's a good way to get yourself writing.
-- In fact, that's another reason why perhaps the lack of Serious Topics in Swarthmore journalism isn't really all that bad: said "endless parade of 'opinion' pieces" may not have all that much to offer in terms of content, but sometimes have a lot to offer in terms of style. Entertainment has its place, too. As does pleasure.
— Maia Gerlinger '12, RELENTLESS OPTIMIST | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#6: 10/5/2009 at 9:00 a.m.
Yikes. More vitriol than Peter's column, and at least he labels his as such.
You may be undercutting the self-styled gravity of your message with all the catty personal barbs.
— s | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#7: 10/5/2009 at 9:24 a.m.
And the nugget about ethical purchasing wasn't far beneath the headlines, but right in the first paragraph of the Gazette story.
— also in the interest of accuracy | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#8: 10/5/2009 at 12:08 p.m.
"journalism here misses a rare opportunity to engage broad swathes of the community in discussions about important issues that affect us all."
But there really aren't that many issues that do affect us all, because everyone on this campus has a different passion or cause. Nothing will please everyone, and nothing will even get everyone involved in "spirited dialogue". The "big issues" that get covered by the Phoenix and the Gazette are the most controversial ones... the ones that are guaranteed to be read about when they are printed/posted. Even the most brilliant piece of investigative journalism will be ignored if it doesn't appeal to the publication's readership. That's not anybody's fault, it's the way the media work. We Swatties may be insatiably thirsting after a good debate, but not everything is worth our time. Ironic, then, that I at least thought that this was worth my time to say...
Yet if you two are going to take it upon yourselves to fill in the gaps you've pointed out, more power to you. I look forward to your column!
And lastly, I agree with you, Maia. Personally, I enjoyed your article on the Cygnet, as fluffy as it was.
— Andrew '12 | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#9: 10/5/2009 at 12:29 p.m.
Ben, remember when you commented on Peter's article that "hurling disrespectful bile at other students is never appropriate nor is it a valid argumentative tool"? I wouldn't call this "disrespectful bile", but I do think you should be careful about writing off every journalist on campus. I'm sure many of them were on board with this article until the authors attacked their "fashion advice column", their "fluff piece", etc.
The current Swattie writers are smart, and you probably want them on your side in this movement towards more "exciting journalism". Don't be counter-productive. Maybe they do publish mostly "fluff"... but not everyone can write meta-journalism.
— Kat Clark '12, also relentless optimist | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#10: 10/5/2009 at 4:25 p.m.
I salute you guys! Excellent column.
Seriously, my high school's newspaper wrote better and more interesting articles than the Phoenix did, and we were an under/nonfunded paper in a fucked up inner-city high school. Journalism here is too damn soft.
— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#11: 10/5/2009 at 6:41 p.m.
My, my. Well, I'm certainly looking forward to seeing how you boys fill in the void. Somehow I'm expecting a lot of vapid, self-righteous hipster nonsense... but what do I know?
— skeptical. | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#12: 10/6/2009 at 11:28 a.m.
"By larger victory for student protest, do you mean PR move to make the Kick Coke fiasco look less ridiculous? If so, I agree. Yay, more committees and policies!"
I have several friends who are getting the ethical purchasing committee up and running, as well as several others applying to be on the committee. All the people I know who are involved are passionate and committed to making the committee a success. Now whether or not they succeed remains to be seen, but I would request that until you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please keep your broad unfounded accusations to a minimum. If, however, you have constructive criticism on how to make the committee effective, on how students could have campaigned differently to keep Coke off our campus, or any other suggestions on how students can encourage change in a more effective way, by all means share them! I'm sure most members of the activist community would welcome input on how to be more effective in their efforts to reach out to the students body, as well as to make a difference within Swat's administration.
— H | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#13: 10/6/2009 at 7:51 p.m.
A few things:
1) Ben, I thought your comments on Peter's column were impressively well-written, and I was pretty disappointed that you didn't use your talent to its fullest for this column.
2) In one of your comments on Peter's column, Ben, you say, "While satire may have its place in debate, hurling disrespectful bile at other students is never appropriate nor is it a valid argumentative tool." However, in this article, you write, "Flipping through this week’s issue of the Phoenix, we can find a fluff piece about the Cygnet—a book we all know about and use anyway, and frankly, isn’t that important—and a fashion advice column that condescends to men that they ought to take some advice from girls and care about their appearance." Considering that the names of the authors of those columns were published, I'm not sure whether you are living up to your own standards. The existence of fluff pieces does not preclude the existence of more serious debate; I'd like to see you focus your argument more on the lack of serious articles rather than the existence of more lighthearted ones.
3) In general, though, I agree with you. I was extremely disappointed, and more than a little ashamed, at the Phoenix last week, not for what it did contain, but more for what it didn't.
4) If this column will in fact take on the role of investigative journalism that is so lacking, I encourage you to take a look at the Cleary Act, and how Swarthmore does (not) abide by it.
— Mycroft | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#14: 10/6/2009 at 9:10 p.m.
In response to 2, Mycroft, while I agree that "the existence of fluff pieces does not preclude the existence of more serious debate," I think, and I might be wrong, but I think the problem is that there are to a large extent _only_ fluff pieces.
Just thought I'd chime in...
— S | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#15: 10/7/2009 at 2:48 a.m.
Well I have to say that your intentions to salvage Swat journalism are all very noble and high-minded - good luck trying to actually implement them and sufficiently impress everyone on campus. Thanks for setting yourselves such high standards for this column - I wouldn't call that inspiring as much as it is idiotic, but I'll be watching.
— ghostwriter | Registered, Swarthmore
#16: 10/7/2009 at 9:37 a.m.
It's called the Clary Act.
— another student | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#17: 10/7/2009 at 10:56 a.m.
It's actually the Clery Act.
— L | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#18: 10/7/2009 at 11:25 a.m.
Oh goodness please write about the Clery Act. If this is a column that's just about the lack of investigative journalism, but without actual investigating and reporting...
— j | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#19: 10/7/2009 at 11:44 a.m.
How does Swarthmore not abide by it? We were just sent an email about the annual safety/crime report, which can be found here: http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/administration/publicsafety/Campus%20Safety%20Report%202008(1).pdf
— ? | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#20: 10/7/2009 at 1:39 p.m.
You can learn more about the Clery Act here:
http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=271&Itemid=60
Note that "Institutions must make timely warnings to the campus community about crimes that pose an ongoing threat to students and employees."
The Swat administration seems to think that repeat perpetrators of sex crimes don't constitute an ongoing threat.
As a matter of fact, Ben and Dennis, you should look into how Swat deals with students who are accused of sexual misconduct. Notice how people tend to "disappear"...
— Mycroft | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#21: 10/8/2009 at 10:56 a.m.
Not to mention that according to the college policy, http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/slife/student_handbook.pdf, a student is not considered to have been assaulted unless they behave like Swarthmore's concept of a good victim.
Note that "Sexual assault is defined as any sexual contact that occurs without the consent of the other person," but lack of consent is then defined as "[indicating] that she/he does not want sexual contact."
Which is, by the way, NOT lack of consent. All you have to do to lack consent is NOT CONSENT, whether you "indicate" something or stay absolutely silent. But I'm glad that Swarthmore has decided to put the burden in a questionable sexual situation on the scared, confused, or intimidated person rather than instructing the person who initiated the sexual encounter to obtain active consent before continuing.
— A | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#22: 10/9/2009 at 12:59 a.m.
Bravo!
Write more.
Idea for investigation:
The Financial Planning Group, charged with dealing with the decline in the endowment has no student involvement whatsoever. Some "student advisory" committee is being formed; it appears to be nominal. What is the administration trying to hide? Why are students excluded from these meetings? How many other committees exclude students completely?
— A2 | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#23: 10/19/2009 at 5:25 p.m.
All specific references aside, and with a nod to the hard and often excellently-written work of Swat journalists, I tend to agree with the overall message of this column. Even when pieces are executed well, it seems that the >choice< of topics to cover is actually the problem. For example, a really well-written article about someone's senior thesis is still at best interesting and at worst irrelevant to most readers. As some of you have already said, while there is nothing wrong with fluff and entertainment (not to mention stories that are just plain boring), the ration of fluff to content is pretty concerning.
I would suggest doing a piece on funding for student events and projects - it's high time somebody pointed out that the IC/BCC communities put on the majority of events on campus, but still have to scrounge around for a fraction of the funds. Not to mention the fact that funding for student initiatives is just ridiculous in general. I'd like to see a comparison with how other schools provide funding, and I bet you'll find that our policy of begging for pennies from each department, administrator and committee on campus is as absurd as it feels.
And while I'm suggesting topics for columns, I'd also like to see a piece on the lack of support for ESL (usually international) and under-prepared students coming into Swat. Why doesn't the Writing Center provide WAs and WAMs who specialize in helping ESL students? Also, can we talk about the ridiculous parking policies here and in the Borough? And why we can't seem to attract businesses in the Ville that are looking to serve the student body?
I'm looking forward to this column - good luck!
— Christine Ernst | Registered, Swarthmore
#24: 11/20/2009 at 12:52 a.m.
Re: Clery reports
I don't think Clery reports are the problem. The College's definition seems to be. The policy is unfortunately vague on what consent is and how it is indicated. I think the College lets its image get in the way here, and it should amend the policy to say that anything but a yes is a no (and believe me, I've suggested it). I was certainly assaulted in high school, but under our current policy I can't call I assault because I said yes.
It is a shame that people can just disappear rather than face up to what they've done but the College has no legal right to keep them here and can't mark their transcripts without a judiciary process in which guilt is determined (and said process can't happen in absentia). There's not really much to be done about that, I'm afraid.
— Mr. Mistaker | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#25: 11/20/2009 at 1:53 a.m.
Just thought I'd point out that this makes no logical sense:
"it should amend the policy to say that anything but a yes is a no (and believe me, I've suggested it). I was certainly assaulted in high school, but under our current policy I can't call I assault because I said yes."
because, under your suggested policy that anything but a yes is a no, you STILL couldn't call it assault because you said yes.
So, you may want to clarify.
— Peter '11 | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore
#26: 11/20/2009 at 9:44 a.m.
Correction: I think I grunted. It was interpreted as yes. It meant "I dunno." But it still isn't handled as saying no under the policy. The coercion part of our policy covers people saying yes under duress of any kind, but it is vague on noncommittal noises or gestures and what exactly consent is. It should require a *verbal* yes with no coercion, and I do not believe that is the case at this time.
— Mr. Mistaker | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#27: 11/20/2009 at 10:24 a.m.
Re: people disappearing
Survivors of sexual assault that happened at Swat frequently feel that the administration encourages them not to file charges. This enables perpetrators to "disappear" and lets the college keep up appearances.
— Mycroft | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#28: 11/20/2009 at 4:11 p.m.
Mycroft - I don't disagree that the administration sometimes discourages survivors not to file charges. But no matter what a survivor does short of filing a police report and pressing charges, the student can still disappear with nary a blemish. A police report is a big deal, and can be very traumatic, so it's best approached with caution, but I'd hope that the administration would be supportive of either choice (and, really, it depends on which dean/administrator you talk to).
— Mr. Mistaker | Unregistered, Swarthmore