by Billy Findley
Online Editor
In light of the numerous complaints we, as The Triangle staff, have received in response to the Tromanhauser suspension story, we feel we owe our fellow Bryan students and staff an explanation. First of all, we were well aware that our front page, as a whole, was rather negative and given the fact that our paper editions are less frequent then they have been in years past, we understand our readers would like to see a lighter side of the news whenever they do get a paper. Be that as it may, our goal is to cover the news as it is. Some weeks are more positive than others.
Let me address what I think is the overarching concern that students have regarding the story – the necessity of it all. Why was this important? And why does this have anything to do with students not involved in this case?
The fact is, this case should have been kept confidential from the beginning – completely confidential. Though intentions may have been well, this should never have entered the public arena.
But it did. On Jan. 24, the day before The Triangle was to be produced for that week, private information was not only made public to a large group of students, but came in the form of a petition, which meant students were not only exposed to specific pieces of information regarding the case, but also felt compelled to act on that information. The moment this story was made public, it was news. That’s the inevitable consequence when information is leaked to a large enough number of people, and often times that information “isn’t the whole story,” as Long Residence Director Matt Williams stated during an interview for the follow-up story posted last week.
As journalists, it is our responsibility to provide the pertinent facts, and, as best we can, the whole story. It is our responsibility to refute the rumors, steer clear of bias and separate facts from fiction. Given the information at hand on Jan. 25, we believe we did what we needed to do. Furthermore, let it be known to our readers that we didn’t stop there.
We finished what we started. We obtained the facts we needed from the people in the Office of Student Life, who unfortunately were constrained by law in what they were allowed to divulge concerning the matter. In its infancy, the information may not directly affect most students and we understand that. In fact, probably 90 percent of printed media, bad or good, has little to no immediate effect on students. However, the consequence of not accurately covering these stories can (and usually does) result in gossip, unfair accusations and ultimately an uninformed student body. We chose to cover the story.
Where we went wrong
We erred in two crucial ways in the process of reporting this story, and we would like to apologize and clear things up as best we can. First of all, we did not contact members of the Office of Student Life the night we wrote the story due to the late hour that the story was being written. This was my decision and though it might have inconvenienced our dean of students or our residence directors, we should have at least made an effort.
Secondly, the story in the paper edition was given a headline that was not the emphasis of the story. The emphasis of the story was not the suspension of the student but rather the petition itself. Our headline should have reflected that.
In conclusion, let it be known to our readers that we are appreciative of your concerns and feedback concerning our coverage of this story. We’re thankful that so many of you care about the newspaper and it is our goal to continue to strive for excellence in journalism, even on a smaller scale like the student publication. Keep sending your letters to the editor, and, as always, off-the-record quotes are appreciated.
Loading ...
