Dartblog

Last Friday, The Dartmouth published an article that did not contain any news. While such articles are not altogether unusual in that publication, this one was particularly notorious. The article is called “Phrygian members take stand in AoA elections.”

Of particular interest to me is the motivation behind the article. Most of the piece—the first four fifths of it, or so—is nothing more than a summary of past events related to the student movement in support of parity on the Board of Trustees. Dartblog is mentioned, as are editorials in The Dartmouth Review, the pro-parity petition that was circulated by two current seniors, and the insensitive cartoon published last month in The Dartmouth.

Then there is a paragraph that consists almost entirely of a list of names. The list is of individuals whom the article claims to be members of the Phrygian Society, an organization of pro-parity Dartmouth students that chooses to keep its membership secret. It is thus strange that The Dartmouth thought it proper to so confidently identify these individuals. Stranger still that the article names no source of any kind for its list—not a document, not an individual, not a clandestinely-recorded meeting. Not one. Only the weasel-word “sources.”

Another line raises eyebrows as well:

When contacted by The Dartmouth, [two students] refused to be interviewed in person and insisted on having any questions sent to them over BlitzMail.

One needs hardly note that any reputable newspaper strives to keep its own reporting out of the story. And indeed, The Dartmouth usually does. Normally, when a source prefers to answer questions over blitz, The Dartmouth simply states so with the phrase “said in an e-mail to The Dartmouth.” The proof is here, a google search for that phrase with a multitude of hits.

Why is it relevant that the two students would not answer questions in person? What sense does The Dartmouth mean to convey by including this information? Does it mean to purposefully present the two students in an unfavorable light?

Between the complete absence of news in the article, the sourceless list of names and the gratuitous, tabloid-style inclusion of irrelevant information, one is inescapably forced to the conclusion that the sole purpose of this article was to “out” the current members of Dartmouth’s Phrygian Society.

One is reminded strongly of another incident in which a campus newspaper “outed” a group of students for something.

In 1984, a staff member of The Dartmouth Review infiltrated a meeting Dartmouth’s Gay-Straight Alliance, and the paper published a transcript without redacting students’ names. The campus outcry was deafening, and rightfully so.

The Dartmouth’s stunt last Friday was exactly the same—with less journalistic integrity. At least The Review had the courage to mention its source. Being a known Phrygian at Dartmouth exposes one to exactly the same sort of prejudices as being a minority at Dartmouth—perhaps a bit more intensely.

When members of the Gay-Straight Alliance are outed, we have an uproar. But since Phrygians tend to be conservative, it is good and proper to mistreat them. Nobody bats an eye.

Freedom of speech is healthy at Dartmouth?

JENN adds: Dartlog alleges that the Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth, Katy O’Donnell, ghost wrote the piece and faked a byline. This would not be the first time in my experience that The Dartmouth has published an article with incorrect attribution. The reasons given for this breach of journalistic integrity include a desire to develop even closer ties to the administration. Perhaps appropriately, I noticed this message chalked on the building that holds The Dartmouth’s offices: