It’s tough out there for a journalist! Or at least the Daily Stun wants it to be. Because when it comes to breaking stories, The Stun is quite the scoop-Nazi.
In a rather strange exhibition of puerility, Cornell’s trusted news source refused to provide a Review writer with notes from an interview after she had agreed to share audio recording with another journalist from the Stun. While it is not The Review‘s MO to take jabs at competing papers, its mission is to illuminate hostility towards conservatives on campus, and expose those institutions which aim to silence the minority voice. In this aspect, The Stun is a front-runner.
When Review writer Kathleen McCaffrey’s recorder didn’t work before an interview last week with Czech president Václav Klaus, a Sun reporter kindly agreed to send her the audio from his own device after the interview. Surprised by such professionalism shown between the two, an administrator overseeing the event said, “wow, how nice of you two to work together.”
But the professionalism was short-lived, as the Stun’s managing editor instructed his reporter to withhold the information. He even refused to provide President Klaus’s quotes that were in response to McCaffrey’s direct questions, citing a long-term policy that doesn’t allow sharing of unpublished information.
“I’ve never heard of any such rule,” one long-time Stun staff member told The Review – perhaps he insisted anonymity for fear of receiving a ‘time-out.’
In typical fashion, The Stun, shielded under the guise of self-proclaimed neutrality, was in fact operating under a strict policy of discrimination. While the paper offered to assess the correctness of quotes if McCaffrey tried guessing what was said, it insisted upon standing by the eternal policy of withholding information. When asked to recall a recent implementation of this rule, however, the editor stumbled, only able to recount a time where information was indeed passed on upon request. Nevertheless, the Review‘s request for help from another professional was denied.
“From how The Review writes about us, I don’t think we have that professional relationship. I mean come on, you call us The Daily Stun,” the managing editor said to The Review over the phone. “Frankly, a lot of people on our staff don’t like the way we’re treated in your newspaper [and online],” he continued, affirming suspicions that the request for information was denied for personal reasons. “It’s like, why would you give your notes to the kid in class that’s a bully?”
Well it’s always good to know we’re reaching our audience. Thankfully, the article on President Klaus will be published in full this coming Wednesday, despite The Stun’s efforts. As it turns out, the President’s aid willingly handed over the audio from the meeting over a week later. Congratulations to Cornell’s flagship daily paper for having a more iron-clad privacy policy than the Czech Republic. Stunning?
No scoop for you! Come back one year!
I think the managing editor has forgotten that we’ve stood up for and agreed with the Sun on more than one occasion. So it’s not like we pick on them for the sake of it.
That’s actually a great point, Bonica. I didn’t even think to bring that up, but we obviously don’t ‘pick’ on the Sun just because we like using the word ‘Stun.’ We frequently link to articles that bring up good points or support the right folks and causes. As it turns out, those articles happen to be the minority. I even used the proper ‘Sun’ name in the sentence describing the writer agreeing to share. Not a typo, haha
Having this cute blog to air out your personal grievances must make your nuts feel huge.
Beg to differ, Get Over Yourself, but you’re in fact quite wrong. While the Sun has never exactly been an outstanding example of student journalism, it certainly seems like it’s getting weaker. This is pretty hilarious. Both you and the Sun only EMPOWER this website with your actions. If this site were as ‘cute’ and insignificant as you claim, why are you commenting? If the Sun wasn’t threatened by the Review, why would they renege on their agreement to share notes?
This is petty indeed, especially on the Sun’s behalf.
As someone who enjoyed disgruntling (is that a word?) the Sun managing editor during my time on the Hill, I find this post in good, light-hearted taste. That being said, I could see how journalists would avoid sharing notes across publications — for one thing, if the Sun reporter got something wrong or misquoted someone, the damage would be that much greater if the error propogated through multiple publications. Is the review merely a red-filter of previously reported Cornell news, or does it wish to be its own, independent source? If the review wants to cover something, they should dedicate the necessary assets (trained, well-prepared reporters) to do so. You could say “if a Sun reporter came to us for a quote, we’d give it to them” but actually, the Sun would never allow such a thing to happen … said managing editor would forbid such a transaction, and if you ever meet a reporter who does ask you for something like that, and then puts it in a story without prompting it with “according to the Cornell Review” then please call the managing editor back up and inform him. He’ll happily fire the writer and send him your way!
Also the solar flare photo is a nice touch.