01 OPINION Page 4 Friday, April 8, 1983 The Michigan Daily Petitioning the other side of the story By David Spak One has to be living in a vacuum on this cam- pus to be unaware of the petition drive aimed at the Daily entitled "A call for responsible journalism." The petition accuses the Daily of sensationalism; increasing religious, racial, and gender tension on campus; misquoting sources and misrepresenting the news; and withholding information which could have eased some of that tension. It goes on to demand that the Daily admit to its irrespon- sibility and make assurances that efforts will be made "to decrease the irresponsible jour- nalism in the future." Sounds serious to me. So while those who are trying to persuade you to sign the petition give you their side of the story at CRISP or in the Fishbowl, let me do what a responsible jour- nalist would do-give the other side a chance to respond. I REALIZE that my arguments will not ap- pease many of those most upset with the Daily. But then again, those most upset with the Daily probably have not thought rationally about the arguments in favor of the Daily. The petition states that "since the present editorial board of the Michigan Daily has taken over there has been a consistent pattern of irresponsible journalism." Among others, the petition cites articles we've published on a bulimiac expelled from her sorority; the Jewish American Princess stereotype; an Israeli scholar who spoke on campus; and, most recently, a fraternity party that had racist implications. In my mind, the most serious of the "charges" the petition brings are that we have misquoted sources and misrepresented the news. These are of most concern to me because they involve 'the way we report a story and these are charges those outside of journalism are least qualified to make. The petition says we misquoted the Israeli scholar and misrepresented his positions. We did. We also admitted to our mistake in a correction the next day. But those backing the petition are not satisfied. The damage is done, they say. Again, they are correct. REPORTERS make mistakes, editors make mistakes. We're human. Even people at The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times are human. So what do we do when me make a mistake? We admit it. On April 6 The Wall Street Journal admitted to five mistakes. When The New York Times runs a correction it appears in a small corner on the second page. These corrections actually take up less space than the corrections that appear in the Daily. We only do what the experts in our field do when a mistake is made. What about other "misquotations"? The petition claims we misquoted a counselor in the story on the bulimiac. In actuality, our reporter tried unsuccessfully to contact the counselor for comment. We correctly quoted a member of the sorority who misquoted the counselor. In other cases where we indeed misquote a source, we admit our mistake and run a correc- tion. It is part of our responsibility to our readers and to ourselves. Certainly, a reader or a source can and should make us aware of our mistakes. MORE importantly, this "charge" implicitly questions the way we report a story. This brings into play the other accusations (sen- sationalism, creating increased racial ten- sions, creating an issue, etc.) the petition raises. As a test case, I use the Sigma Alpha Mu "jungle party" story. The petition claims we created the issue because only three of the 150 partygoers painted their bodies black and because we contacted black leaders on campus to get their reaction to the party. We did not paint the three partygoers black, nor did we put blackface and rabbit, ears (representing the stereotype "jungle bunny") on at least one other partygoer - a fact we did not know about at the time we ran the original story. Yes, we did report that three people at the party were painted black, but I fail to see how we created an issue by reporting that fact. DID WE do anything wrong by contacting black leaders on campus for reaction? Did we create an issue by doing that? If we did, then reporters are guilty of doing that in every story newspapers print. It is a reporter's job to contact people to get comment- to get the story - because 99.9 per- cent of the time the comment will not come to the reporter. Every reporter who is doing the job properly almost always is trying to contact a source. If a reporter is doing a story on the proposed art school budget cut, he doesn't wait for the school's dean to contact him, he contacts the dean. Naturally, we reporters are not always suc- cessful, as in trying to contact the counselor for the bulimia story. But we are guilty of only doing our jobs by trying to get the story. DID ANY of these stories increase tension on campus? This tension, especially racial ten- sion, has been at an extremely high level for a long time. All year it has been at its highest level since I've been here (I'm a junior), and I'd venture a guess to say things haven't been this bad since the Black Action Movement strike 13 years ago. These tensions have been boiling under the surface. What the jungle party article did was bring those tensions to the surface. It exposes the racial tensions that exist at the University- with the hope of easing those tensions by in- forming people about them. If people are more aware that these problems exist, the problems are necessarily easier to solve. Ignorance can no longer be used as an excuse for not solving the problems. That, in large part, is the fundamental pur- pose of a newspaper. There are a few more things I should say to place my comments in better context. Contrary to a popular perception, the Daily is not monolithic. We have policy debates which are often heated. But these internal considerations remain internal. When we need to comment on some issue in a manner other than an editorial, we have so far relied solely on our editor-in-chief as our spokesperson. Consequently, people may misinterpret the editor-in-chief's influence. In such situations, the editor-in-chief's voice is the voice of the majority of the editors. Lastly, these arguments are the product of a thought process I've been going through since long before the current set of editors was elec- ted. It is a process that is part of my job as a reporter. It is a process that is part of my job as an editor. It is a process that is part of my job as a responsible journalist. Spak is the Daily's co-Opinion Page editor. Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Wasserman Vol. XCIII, No. 149 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board W T~ t'AOIL WAN4T TO D~tL SOAA T6 P ouT Olt..CMAN145 fl EAcSf M'ONE.Y AND O :T rU& , TA\X I Holes in a net ." . r ~i. . .-. ..... W HEN PRESIDENT Reagan began his systematic gutting of the nations social service programs, he vowed he would not cut through the vital "safety net" supposed to provide of the poor and elderly. Though the assertion rang hollow at the time, now there is increasing evidence the president cut not welfare cheats but millions of needy people from the government aid programs. A survey by a Boston hospital found a surprisingly large number of children with stunted growth. A Har- vard health specialist told a Senate' subcommittee, that the figures may be a sign of "silent undernutrition" among the nation's poor. The study concluded that the children five years of age and younger were susceptible to permanent brain damage from poor nutrition. In addition, Sen. John Danforth, a member of the president's own party,. reported that a recent trip to his home state of Missouri also revealed major nutrition problems there as well. Small surveys showed malnutrition both among inner city children in St. Louis and elderly poor in Kansas City. The implications of such findings are ominous, but unfortunately not sur- prising. The president has cut millions of dollars from the federal school lunch program and other nutritional sup- plement plans. In addition, he has cut billions from the food stamp program, denying thousands of needed assistan- ce. He wants to cut an additional billion dollars from next year's food stamp budget. The zeal with which the ad- ministration has stripped social programs of funds has even his Republican colleagues in the Senate deserting him. Both Danforth and Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) are trying to amass evidence that such cuts are hurting the very people the Reagan ad- ministration's safety net was supposed to help. Although no national study has been undertaken, the signs are clear that millions of Americans are underfed and receiving little or no government help. The Census Bureau announ- cement that the number of Americans living in poverty in 1981 (31.8 million) was the highest in more than 15 years, make increased funding for food- related programs the necessary replacement for further welfare cuts. SAALU. AND Th{ETAX l /UNBEARABE TK GO\1QWETA ALWPAIS ON OUR .I 6L.E ,AAK c.Ntb so NVRE &StTM &OUT OF THE Ott BUSINES / . p < _ 1 r i ( Z S S ( LETTERS TO THE DAILY: UAC did not endorse petition . . . i To the Daily: Presently, there is a petition circulating on campus which protests The Michigan Daily's "consistent pattern of irrespon- sible journalism." The bottom of this petition states that it and the purposes behind it are endorsed by UAC, the University Activities Center. The UAC Executive Board has not endorsed this petition. UAC does support the ideal of responsible journalism in all media which exist to inform the public; this includes The Michigan Daily. In regard to the above-mentioned petition, however, UAC neither endorses nor opposes it. Individual UAC members may support "a call for responsible journalism" from The Michigan Daily but these are personal views and do not reflect the organization's position. To those who might accuse UAC of trying to avoid the issue let us state that we have not been sup- plied with sufficient informaion nor given adequate time to mak* a responsible decision concerning the petition. We hope that the University Activities Center's involvement in this matter stands corrected. -Lori Smith Rob Markus Leigh Sweda Michael Jarema UAC Executive Boardmember* April l ... petition ridiculous . . . To the Daily: In regards to your articles ("Fraternity votes not to 'black up'," Daily, April 6, and "MSA calls Daily irresponsible," Mar- ch 30) this petition for a better Daily is totally ridiculous. The Michigan Daily, like all other student newspapers-and student organizations-has its flaws. For sure MSA and Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity cannot say they are flawless. It's interesting that all the major organizations backing this petition drive have at one or more times got bad print in the Daily. For example, a white frater- nity-Sigma Alpha Mu-has a "blacked up" jungle party, which is a good reason for having a resolution drawn un for irresnon- endorsing it-along with LSA Student Government, the College Republicans, the Intra Frater- nity Council, and the Pan Hellenic Council. A call to investigate the Daily by hiring an ombudsman would probably not benefit the majority of the student body, add more costs to the students through fees, and be useless. Overall, this drive is taking up a lot of energy that could be used to further student unity-as well as better communication with the Daily. Many students consisten- tly attack the Daily for doing it's job-covering university events, etc. I think until students such as Brian Sher and the organizations ... Daily should be praised To the Daily: What is amusing about the recent barrage of criticisms against the Daily-irresponsible journalism, the fostering of racism, etc.-is that they're prin- ted in the Daily_ itself. It's proof that the Daily permits different, dissenting views. All views? Well, not quite all. If, for example-a la George Minde's article on Nicaragua-I'd counter it by saying that, far from his notion of the Sandinistas as too far left, they haven't goneleft enough and what they need over there is a fair enough, to print no-small- amount of views not its own.It deserves a pat on the back rather than the scathing invectives I've recently been reading, like against a perfectly unbiased & scholarly article on "Japs," or against a photo what appeared scantily-dressed black Africans living in the jungle. Or should I, tsk-tsk, have said "rain forest." What's so horrendous about this close-living to nature any an- thropologist or ecologist would ask. Maybe it's one-up on our frenzied technologized super- urbanized way of life. Those who /IIIJ //It F7I