College Student Newspapers

[Purple Pile Driver]

What exactly would you like me to do? Because in the same sentence you're saying that I'm allowing too much of one thing and not enough of another. So am I just supposed to censor the things that bother you personally?

No, like I am many have recommended step away from the keyboard. It’s the inconsistency that is bothersome. We are grown adults. Why do you feel a need to interject yourself into almost every thread that goes above 10 posts? Are subscribers complaining to you in mass about the conduct of other subscribers? These warnings just aggravate the situation. It it truly warrants deletion, do it. Deletion should be reserved for name calling or very obvious offensive comments.

 

[CappyNU]

No, like I am many have recommended step away from the keyboard. It’s the inconsistency that is bothersome. We are grown adults. Why do you feel a need to interject yourself into almost every thread that goes above 10 posts? Are subscribers complaining to you in mass about the conduct of other subscribers? These warnings just aggravate the situation. It it truly warrants deletion, do it. Deletion should be reserved for name calling or very obvious offensive comments.

What is inconsistent? I have given you my standards for what merits deletion. I have responded to feedback multiple times, changed my approach in moderation multiple times, and all I get is constant bitching and complaining from the same few posters who want to be allowed to say whatever they want, insert their political viewpoints, and act like dickheads in general when they get told no.

I delete something, people bitch that they don't know what was deleted. I put a warning before deleting, people bitch that it should just be deleted. If I leave everything up, you're gonna complain that the same few posters are repeating things.

 

[NUCat320]

Are you asking this as satire or are you serious?
Its a no-brainer.
Solve the problem and move on.
Everyone would have been better served if Schill had done as advised.
Except the attorneys. And the few people who are infatuated with what goes on in a locker room.

What was Schill advised?


Had nobody followed up on the university’s press release, then running and car wash wouldn’t be in anybody’s vocabulary. The only reason anybody knows anything is because The Daily published.


Knowing what you know now, do you think the University press release was sufficient?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

What was Schill advised?


Had nobody followed up on the university’s press release, then running and car wash wouldn’t be in anybody’s vocabulary. The only reason anybody knows anything is because The Daily published.


Knowing what you know now, do you think the University press release was sufficient?

Schill was advised to suspend Fitzgerald for two weeks and that new monitoring had been put in place to prevent the alleged violations from re-occurring. Also that the coaching staff had been warned to be more vigilant / pro-active in preventing such violations. To me, that is all completely appropriate and reasonable.

Had nobody published Richardson's allegations, the matter would have been resolved. Running the allegations did significant damage to Northwestern, enabling a bunch of outsiders to attack with BS.

Knowing what I know now, I think the press release was the right response.

The only reason people need to see the report is because they fired Fitzgerald based on the report. Had they suspended him, NU could have been completely consistent with everything else they do, citing privacy concerns. What makes you think you would normally have access to an internal investigation?

 

[CoralSpringsCat]

Schill was advised to suspend Fitzgerald for two weeks and that new monitoring had been put in place to prevent the alleged violations from re-occurring. Also that the coaching staff had been warned to be more vigilant / pro-active in preventing such violations. To me, that is all completely appropriate and reasonable.

Had nobody published Richardson's allegations, the matter would have been resolved. Running the allegations did significant damage to Northwestern, enabling a bunch of outsiders to attack with BS.

Knowing what I know now, I think the press release was the right response.

The only reason people need to see the report is because they fired Fitzgerald based on the report. Had they suspended him, NU could have been completely consistent with everything else they do, citing privacy concerns. What makes you think you would normally have access to an internal investigation?

100% correct.

 

[NUCat320]

Schill was advised to suspend Fitzgerald for two weeks and that new monitoring had been put in place to prevent the alleged violations from re-occurring. Also that the coaching staff had been warned to be more vigilant / pro-active in preventing such violations. To me, that is all completely appropriate and reasonable.

Had nobody published Richardson's allegations, the matter would have been resolved. Running the allegations did significant damage to Northwestern, enabling a bunch of outsiders to attack with BS.

Knowing what I know now, I think the press release was the right response.

The only reason people need to see the report is because they fired Fitzgerald based on the report. Had they suspended him, NU could have been completely consistent with everything else they do, citing privacy concerns. What makes you think you would normally have access to an internal investigation?

Is your position “nothing happened” or “it’s bad that we found out something happened?”

 

[CoralSpringsCat]

Is your position “nothing happened” or “it’s bad that we found out something happened?”

There is a third option that you conveniently overlook.

 

[NUCat320]

There is a third option that you conveniently overlook.

What’s that option?

 

[CoralSpringsCat]

What’s that option?

You tell me. I’m not playing your games. You know the answer.

 

[NUCat320]

You tell me. I’m not playing your games. You know the answer.

If you’re imagining that there was no hazing at Northwestern, you’re being silly.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

What is inconsistent? I have given you my standards for what merits deletion. I have responded to feedback multiple times, changed my approach in moderation multiple times, and all I get is constant bitching and complaining from the same few posters who want to be allowed to say whatever they want, insert their political viewpoints, and act like dickheads in general when they get told no.

I delete something, people bitch that they don't know what was deleted. I put a warning before deleting, people bitch that it should just be deleted. If I leave everything up, you're gonna complain that the same few posters are repeating things.

C’mon now. What approach have you changed? You started giving 2 day warnings that a post is getting deleted. Of course, that is ridiculous in itself as if a post REALLY deserved deletion it should be immediately gone. I can accept you calling me a dickhead, as I can certainly be one. However, you continue to refuse to look in the mirror and at least acknowledge that you moderation style is extraordinarily heavy handed compared to what us long time posters are used to. You definitely err on the side of “nip it in the bud” versus letting the thread evolve and extinguish itself.

If you just didn’t do a thing for two weeks, would the board spiral into a shitshow? You also never answer my question if subscribers are asking for you to control all of these “dickheads”? Have you ever considered the fact that the majority of posters want less moderation rather than more moderation? Pissing off people tends to bring the dickhead out a lot more than showing a modicum of tolerance. I and others haven’t made this issue up. A good moderator is like a good baseball umpire. The better they are the less you notice them. Think about that before casting the blame on all the dickheads.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

If you’re imagining that there was no hazing at Northwestern, you’re being silly.

I would take a guys opinion that you know was actually part of the football program at NU on what likely occurred over someone that insists on believing the absolute worst of all possible scenarios occurred. You know that third option that refuses to enter your black and white world.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

What is inconsistent? I have given you my standards for what merits deletion. I have responded to feedback multiple times, changed my approach in moderation multiple times, and all I get is constant bitching and complaining from the same few posters who want to be allowed to say whatever they want, insert their political viewpoints, and act like dickheads in general when they get told no.

I delete something, people bitch that they don't know what was deleted. I put a warning before deleting, people bitch that it should just be deleted. If I leave everything up, you're gonna complain that the same few posters are repeating things.

Oh and to answer your question about consistency Cap. You allowed threads on whether the National Anthem should be performed at sporting events and another on the influence of school newspapers, yet got bent out of shape on NU’s code of silence against a university sponsored “human rights club” support of “Hamas” in my neighborhood you grow up to either be a Cop or a Gangster. My question is when you are facing a loaded gun, what’s the difference?

 

[NUCat320]

I would take a guys opinion that you know was actually part of the football program at NU on what likely occurred over someone that insists on believing the absolute worst of all possible scenarios occurred. You know that third option that refuses to enter your black and white world.

The report says there was hazing.

 

[techtim72]

Persistence and repetitiveness on blogs are not virtues.

 

[FeralFelidae]

Oh and to answer your question about consistency Cap. You allowed threads on whether the National Anthem should be performed at sporting events and another on the influence of school newspapers, yet got bent out of shape on NU’s code of silence against a university sponsored “human rights club” support of “Hamas” in my neighborhood you grow up to either be a Cop or a Gangster. My question is when you are facing a loaded gun, what’s the difference?

The Black National Anthem thread (which was eventually locked, I believe) had a tentative connection to a song played at a NU football game, and the school newspapers thread has a connection to the firing of Fitz, so they could be argued to have some relevance to the NU football board. I don't think you can draw much of a connection between the "human rights club" thread and NU football.

The censorship policy began under FloridAlum, who was very vocal about getting rid of the Rant Board. I think it was stressful for FloridAlum because posters have become increasingly touchy and they would go reporting posts to him for trivial things and he didn't enjoy being stuck in the middle. The censorship is a reaction to the posters.

 

[IGNORE2]

Are you asking this as satire or are you serious?
Its a no-brainer.
Solve the problem and move on.
Everyone would have been better served if Schill had done as advised.
Except the attorneys. And the few people who are infatuated with what goes on in a locker room.

Y’all misplace the blame. If daily hadn’t run and CR brought this to ESPN, athletic, and other organization with the dozen corroborators - do you really think the story would not have come out?

In a world of sensationalism cloaked as journalism, you think all the media outlets would have quashed the story - supported by multiple players?

Someone remind me how Duke lax story caught fire. Because lax is such a cool mainstream story? Rape v sexual assault. Straight v not. Glad by liberal friends have learned how to toe that conservative line they despise.

 

[IGNORE2]

What exactly would you like me to do? Because in the same sentence you're saying that I'm allowing too much of one thing and not enough of another. So am I just supposed to censor the things that bother you personally?

Bring back the rant!

 

[IGNORE2]

Many of you hate I predicted PF fall. This is the other I have touted - views dropping. Sort any of the pages by views. Here, the rock, bball. Look at last post date. Look at topic.

Rant gone - many of the last threads would be in that top 30 view today. Now with the locks and deletes and heavy moderation - there are fewer threads, fewer views.

I doubt we have a big subscriber base. I bet that number is declining. Yahoo is not a not for profit. We have three staff - Cappy, Shelton, Lou. I can’t imagine our traffic drives much revenue. Eventually Cappy has to get sick of being thankless policeman, Lou has to tire of crap from yahoo about numbers, not sure where Shelton fits in.

The scout model is a great argument. WR has to distinguish itself to survive and running off long time posters, discouraging conflict posters and seeking KumBaLa ain’t going to pay the bills.

Hate me, hate the rant, hate the bickering - but that pays the bills. I would reduce moderation and bring back rant behind the pay wall. Watch your traffic and subscribers jump. If you say rant but pay more, I say increase subscription price and I’m still back in.

But what do I know - I only graduated from NU.

 

[techtim72]

Many of you hate I predicted PF fall. This is the other I have touted - views dropping. Sort any of the pages by views. Here, the rock, bball. Look at last post date. Look at topic.

Rant gone - many of the last threads would be in that top 30 view today. Now with the locks and deletes and heavy moderation - there are fewer threads, fewer views.

I doubt we have a big subscriber base. I bet that number is declining. Yahoo is not a not for profit. We have three staff - Cappy, Shelton, Lou. I can’t imagine our traffic drives much revenue. Eventually Cappy has to get sick of being thankless policeman, Lou has to tire of crap from yahoo about numbers, not sure where Shelton fits in.

The scout model is a great argument. WR has to distinguish itself to survive and running off long time posters, discouraging conflict posters and seeking KumBaLa ain’t going to pay the bills.

Hate me, hate the rant, hate the bickering - but that pays the bills. I would reduce moderation and bring back rant behind the pay wall. Watch your traffic and subscribers jump. If you say rant but pay more, I say increase subscription price and I’m still back in.

But what do I know - I only graduated from NU.

Probably right. Same formula every other media outlet is using these days. Compared to the Washington Post's comments sections WR is Dr Seuss.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Probably right. Same formula every other media outlet is using these days. Compared to the Washington Post's comments sections WR is Dr Seuss.

Dr Seuss is pretty cool literature...
Yertle the Turtle is phenomenal.
I'm guessing you meant Wildcat Report is very polite / tame?
Because Dr Seuss is often quite insightful...
Or is that what you meant?
Compared to the Washington Post comments, people at Wildcat Report are very insightful?

One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish. (The two fish need to learn how to compromise!)

Hopefully I don't get censored.

 

[techtim72]

Dr Seuss is pretty cool literature...
Yertle the Turtle is phenomenal.
I'm guessing you meant Wildcat Report is very polite / tame?
Because Dr Seuss is often quite insightful...
Or is that what you meant?
Compared to the Washington Post comments, people at Wildcat Report are very insightful?

One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish. (The two fish need to learn how to compromise!)

Hopefully I don't get censored.

Don't overthink it.

 

[NUCat320]

I would take a guys opinion that you know was actually part of the football program at NU on what likely occurred over someone that insists on believing the absolute worst of all possible scenarios occurred. You know that third option that refuses to enter your black and white world.

I truthfully don’t understand what you’ve written here. Can you clarify?

This was in response to me writing “if you’re imagining there was no hazing at Northwestern, you’re being silly.”

 

[NUCat320]

100% yes.

So either Richardson or a Trustee (or both) talked to the Daily before Schill announced the suspension, given the speed at which they published the allegations.

You can deny this all you want, but use your head.

All Schill had to do was say "The matter has been reviewed and due to privacy concerns we will not comment further."

Instead he wet his pants.

If given the story in advance, why would The Daily wait until the day *after* the university press release?

If given the story in advance, why would The Daily publish a story based on the NU press release on Friday, and then publish their follow-up reporting on Saturday?

CR contacted The Daily after Fitz received a suspension during an NCAA no-contact period, and nothing more.

But, the player said that he doesn’t believe the sanctions levied against the program are enough, calling them a “slap on the wrist.” The player said he also does not feel that the University should keep confidential the details of the findings, calling the secrecy “extremely frustrating.”

It’s possible that this could have been follow-up reporting, but that theory would not explain why The Daily regurgitated the press release first.

Here’s the Saturday story:

Former NU football player details hazing allegations

Content warning: This article contains mention of hazing, sexual assault and suicidal ideation. A former Northwestern University football player told The Daily some of the hazing conduct investigated by the university involved coerced sexual acts. A second player confirmed these details. The...

dailynorthwestern.com

And here’s the Friday story, which comes totally from the press release:

Investigation finds evidence of hazing in football program, Pat Fitzgerald suspended Investigation finds evidence of hazing in football program

Evidence supports a claim of hazing in Northwestern’s football program, an investigation found Friday. The University has placed Head coach Pat Fitzgerald on a two week suspension. The independent investigation was publicly launched by the University in January, after the school was made aware...

dailynorthwestern.com

And, for what it’s worth, here’s what Northwestern offered during The Daily’s follow-up reporting.

University spokesperson Jon Yatesdeclined to comment on the specific details of the allegations.

“Our first priority is to support and protect our students, including… all student-athletes who had the courage to come forward in this independent investigation. That is why the University immediately opened this investigation upon learning of the allegations and why we took decisive action once we ascertained the facts,” Yates wrote in an email to The Daily. “Out of respect for the privacy of our student-athletes, we will not comment about the findings beyond what we stated in the release and executive summary of the investigation.”

 

[IGNORE2]

If given the story in advance, why would The Daily wait until the day *after* the university press release?

If given the story in advance, why would The Daily publish a story based on the NU press release on Friday, and then publish their follow-up reporting on Saturday?

CR contacted The Daily after Fitz received a suspension during an NCAA no-contact period, and nothing more.

But, the player said that he doesn’t believe the sanctions levied against the program are enough, calling them a “slap on the wrist.” The player said he also does not feel that the University should keep confidential the details of the findings, calling the secrecy “extremely frustrating.”

It’s possible that this could have been follow-up reporting, but that theory would not explain why The Daily regurgitated the press release first.

Here’s the Saturday story:

Former NU football player details hazing allegations

Content warning: This article contains mention of hazing, sexual assault and suicidal ideation. A former Northwestern University football player told The Daily some of the hazing conduct investigated by the university involved coerced sexual acts. A second player confirmed these details. The...

dailynorthwestern.com

And here’s the Friday story, which comes totally from the press release:

Investigation finds evidence of hazing in football program, Pat Fitzgerald suspended Investigation finds evidence of hazing in football program

Evidence supports a claim of hazing in Northwestern’s football program, an investigation found Friday. The University has placed Head coach Pat Fitzgerald on a two week suspension. The independent investigation was publicly launched by the University in January, after the school was made aware...

dailynorthwestern.com

And, for what it’s worth, here’s what Northwestern offered during The Daily’s follow-up reporting.

University spokesperson Jon Yatesdeclined to comment on the specific details of the allegations.

“Our first priority is to support and protect our students, including… all student-athletes who had the courage to come forward in this independent investigation. That is why the University immediately opened this investigation upon learning of the allegations and why we took decisive action once we ascertained the facts,” Yates wrote in an email to The Daily. “Out of respect for the privacy of our student-athletes, we will not comment about the findings beyond what we stated in the release and executive summary of the investigation.”

Again - based on the national response, does anyone truly believe that if CR had gone to ESPN, athletic, trib - that they would not have run the story? It was coming out no matter what (liberal press at its finest - poetic justice). So blaming the daily is really silly. If anything, CR gave some student journalists a unique opportunity to break a national headline.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

I truthfully don’t understand what you’ve written here. Can you clarify?

This was in response to me writing “if you’re imagining there was no hazing at Northwestern, you’re being silly.”

How many times do I need to repeat myself? You always resort to the report said “hazing” happened? Fine it happened. You choose to believe players wacked their junk across other players bodies against their objections. I choose to think it is embellished. You tend to believe CR, I tend to think he is a complete scumbag. You are thrilled Fitz got fired for this, I think he got convicted without complete evidence. Nothing either of us say will change the others opinion so why are we wasting each others time?

 

[NUCat320]

How many times do I need to repeat myself? You always resort to the report said “hazing” happened? Fine it happened. You choose to believe players wacked their junk across other players bodies against their objections. I choose to think it is embellished. You tend to believe CR, I tend to think he is a complete scumbag. You are thrilled Fitz got fired for this, I think he got convicted without complete evidence. Nothing either of us say will change the others opinion so why are we wasting each others time?

Okay, then I guess I don’t know why you felt the urge to reply.

 

[nu greek]

I'm not satisfied with the Daily uncritically regurgitating Carl Richardson's allegations.

Which is exactly what happened.

 

[IGNORE2]

Yup, nobody wants to acknowledge that had the daily not run the story, any other media would. It became a national story - not something the daily typically produces. But the enablers must hate on everything that led to PF ouster - rational or not.

 

[FeralFelidae]

Yup, nobody wants to acknowledge that had the daily not run the story, any other media would. It became a national story - not something the daily typically produces. But the enablers must hate on everything that led to PF ouster - rational or not.

What did the Daily do to investigate?

Sure, any trash paper could run with Carl Richardson's allegations. That's not praiseworthy.

 

[wildcatpn]

Which is exactly what happened.

Wait, NUCat320 says the Daily did a great job investigating what wasn’t in NUs initial report.

Don’t you realize that taking a call from a disgruntled 5th string QB is considered great investigating these days?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

If given the story in advance, why would The Daily wait until the day *after* the university press release?

If given the story in advance, why would The Daily publish a story based on the NU press release on Friday, and then publish their follow-up reporting on Saturday?

CR contacted The Daily after Fitz received a suspension during an NCAA no-contact period, and nothing more.

But, the player said that he doesn’t believe the sanctions levied against the program are enough, calling them a “slap on the wrist.” The player said he also does not feel that the University should keep confidential the details of the findings, calling the secrecy “extremely frustrating.”

It’s possible that this could have been follow-up reporting, but that theory would not explain why The Daily regurgitated the press release first.

Here’s the Saturday story:

Former NU football player details hazing allegations

Content warning: This article contains mention of hazing, sexual assault and suicidal ideation. A former Northwestern University football player told The Daily some of the hazing conduct investigated by the university involved coerced sexual acts. A second player confirmed these details. The...

dailynorthwestern.com

And here’s the Friday story, which comes totally from the press release:

Investigation finds evidence of hazing in football program, Pat Fitzgerald suspended Investigation finds evidence of hazing in football program

Evidence supports a claim of hazing in Northwestern’s football program, an investigation found Friday. The University has placed Head coach Pat Fitzgerald on a two week suspension. The independent investigation was publicly launched by the University in January, after the school was made aware...

dailynorthwestern.com

And, for what it’s worth, here’s what Northwestern offered during The Daily’s follow-up reporting.

University spokesperson Jon Yatesdeclined to comment on the specific details of the allegations.

“Our first priority is to support and protect our students, including… all student-athletes who had the courage to come forward in this independent investigation. That is why the University immediately opened this investigation upon learning of the allegations and why we took decisive action once we ascertained the facts,” Yates wrote in an email to The Daily. “Out of respect for the privacy of our student-athletes, we will not comment about the findings beyond what we stated in the release and executive summary of the investigation.”

If you look at those two stories critically, you notice some interesting things...

First, the Saturday story contains no introductory material whatsoever. And that is really bad form - a reader wouldn't necessarily know what the article was even about. (You are supposed to make sure the reader understands - years down the road that article has to stand on its own)

Instead, that article opens with...

"A former Northwestern University football player told The Daily some of the hazing conduct investigated by the university involved coerced sexual acts. A second player confirmed these details."

It is not a sufficient introduction to a news article. It needs to begin with something like... "On Friday, after a 6 month investigation, Northwestern suspended football coach Pat Fitzgerald for 2 weeks after allegations of hazing were deemed credible." THEN follow up with the story. Thats just basic journalism. There is zero context to the Saturday article - and every journalism student knows the basics.

Yet, and this is what is significant, it reads as if the Saturday article was merely a continuation of the Friday article - i.e. the 2nd half of the Friday article, simply cut and held for one day, then released as a new story.

Secondly, and also important, the Saturday article's first sentence does not say when the "former Northwestern University football player told the Daily." Again this is an unusual missing detail. WHEN? It is strange that the word "yesterday" or "today" is omitted. Its a news story (supposedly) and timing is crucial. The authors knew that. This is a solid indication that the Daily got the information on some other time frame or never happened at all (meaning the report was simply handed to the Daily and thats how Richardson "told them.")


The Friday story was important and would have been published because it is big news.
The Daily couldn't run the 2nd part until Saturday because they were trying to make it look innocent. They certainly couldn't air the allegations immediately, it would have been obvious there was a coordinated leak.

Seems simple.

But the bias is obvious in statements like the one you cited by Jon Yates "student-atheletes who had the courage to come forward in this independent investigation." Courage? Totally unnecessary word, reflecting bias against the vast majority of athletes who rejected the allegations as exaggerated or false.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Yup, nobody wants to acknowledge that had the daily not run the story, any other media would. It became a national story - not something the daily typically produces. But the enablers must hate on everything that led to PF ouster - rational or not.

I don't think it was such a clear call. Reputations don't matter as much anymore, but do you really listen to one guy who calls you with some wild allegations? Any reputable media outlet would call NU first and try to corroborate and honestly, get permission, for fear of being sued if the allegations were false.

At least maybe?

I may be out of touch for believing there is some integrity left in the established media.

But let me ask you a question - how do you feel about Richardson supposedly having a deal with NU to let them do the investigation and abide by the results? (He makes allegations, they investigate, he takes no further action)

 

[CoralSpringsCat]

If you look at those two stories critically, you notice some interesting things...

First, the Saturday story contains no introductory material whatsoever. And that is really bad form - a reader wouldn't necessarily know what the article was even about. (You are supposed to make sure the reader understands - years down the road that article has to stand on its own)

Instead, that article opens with...

"A former Northwestern University football player told The Daily some of the hazing conduct investigated by the university involved coerced sexual acts. A second player confirmed these details."

It is not a sufficient introduction to a news article. It needs to begin with something like... "On Friday, after a 6 month investigation, Northwestern suspended football coach Pat Fitzgerald for 2 weeks after allegations of hazing were deemed credible." THEN follow up with the story. Thats just basic journalism. There is zero context to the Saturday article - and every journalism student knows the basics.

Yet, and this is what is significant, it reads as if the Saturday article was merely a continuation of the Friday article - i.e. the 2nd half of the Friday article, simply cut and held for one day, then released as a new story.

Secondly, and also important, the Saturday article's first sentence does not say when the "former Northwestern University football player told the Daily." Again this is an unusual missing detail. WHEN? It is strange that the word "yesterday" or "today" is omitted. Its a news story (supposedly) and timing is crucial. The authors knew that. This is a solid indication that the Daily got the information on some other time frame or never happened at all (meaning the report was simply handed to the Daily and thats how Richardson "told them.")


The Friday story was important and would have been published because it is big news.
The Daily couldn't run the 2nd part until Saturday because they were trying to make it look innocent. They certainly couldn't air the allegations immediately, it would have been obvious there was a coordinated leak.

Seems simple.

But the bias is obvious in statements like the one you cited by Jon Yates "student-atheletes who had the courage to come forward in this independent investigation." Courage? Totally unnecessary word, reflecting bias against the vast majority of athletes who rejected the allegations as exaggerated or false.

This is an excellent analysis. Thanks for sharing. Wish some of our Medill grads would offer up similar critiques.

 

[NUCat320]

If you look at those two stories critically, you notice some interesting things...

First, the Saturday story contains no introductory material whatsoever. And that is really bad form - a reader wouldn't necessarily know what the article was even about. (You are supposed to make sure the reader understands - years down the road that article has to stand on its own)

Instead, that article opens with...

"A former Northwestern University football player told The Daily some of the hazing conduct investigated by the university involved coerced sexual acts. A second player confirmed these details."

It is not a sufficient introduction to a news article. It needs to begin with something like... "On Friday, after a 6 month investigation, Northwestern suspended football coach Pat Fitzgerald for 2 weeks after allegations of hazing were deemed credible." THEN follow up with the story. Thats just basic journalism. There is zero context to the Saturday article - and every journalism student knows the basics.

Yet, and this is what is significant, it reads as if the Saturday article was merely a continuation of the Friday article - i.e. the 2nd half of the Friday article, simply cut and held for one day, then released as a new story.

Secondly, and also important, the Saturday article's first sentence does not say when the "former Northwestern University football player told the Daily." Again this is an unusual missing detail. WHEN? It is strange that the word "yesterday" or "today" is omitted. Its a news story (supposedly) and timing is crucial. The authors knew that. This is a solid indication that the Daily got the information on some other time frame or never happened at all (meaning the report was simply handed to the Daily and thats how Richardson "told them.")


The Friday story was important and would have been published because it is big news.
The Daily couldn't run the 2nd part until Saturday because they were trying to make it look innocent. They certainly couldn't air the allegations immediately, it would have been obvious there was a coordinated leak.

Seems simple.

But the bias is obvious in statements like the one you cited by Jon Yates "student-atheletes who had the courage to come forward in this independent investigation." Courage? Totally unnecessary word, reflecting bias against the vast majority of athletes who rejected the allegations as exaggerated or false.

This is wonderful.

 

[IGNORE2]

What did the Daily do to investigate?

Sure, any trash paper could run with Carl Richardson's allegations. That's not praiseworthy.

Are you saying that you believe ESPN, athletic, trib would not have run with CR’s story? Answer that simple, direct question.

Oh, they did run with it, after it broke, with opportunity to investigate so to discredit that silly school newspaper that scooped them…

Yup, no irrational hate among the enablers…cannot give an inch. Hey, sunrises in the east that morning…best blame Apollo too!

 

[IGNORE2]

I don't think it was such a clear call. Reputations don't matter as much anymore, but do you really listen to one guy who calls you with some wild allegations? Any reputable media outlet would call NU first and try to corroborate and honestly, get permission, for fear of being sued if the allegations were false.

At least maybe?

I may be out of touch for believing there is some integrity left in the established media.

But let me ask you a question - how do you feel about Richardson supposedly having a deal with NU to let them do the investigation and abide by the results? (He makes allegations, they investigate, he takes no further action)

Haven’t heard about the deal. But I’ll call back to the John Does and their lawsuits.