“What Would You Do” spreads dangerous message

One of the perks of winter break is the free time I have to watch random TV shows. Last night, with absolutely nothing watchable on, I tuned in to ABC News’ “What Would You Do?” (No relation to the 1990s Marc Summers-hosted show on Nickelodeon, unfortunately.)

The show places actors in everyday situations and sees how bystanders react. In one segment, an actor cut the line in a supermarket and was awarded the 5 millionth customer award — $500. The hook was watching how the person he cut reacted.

However, the producers needed to do a little homework on another part. A young couple was at a New Jersey bar and, when the young lady went to the bathroom, the man reached into his pocket and put some powder into the woman’s drink. The audience waits to see what the other people at the beachside bar do: will they say something to the woman, will they confront the man, will they tell the bartender, or will they do nothing?

A few of the other bar patrons watched and asked the man what he was doing. Others said something to the girl that she should throw away her drink. Some sat there and watched, and one group even encouraged the guy.

But here’s the awful, damaging part of the show, was when people wouldn’t step in and stop the girl from taking the drink. Then, the girl would say her drink tasted funny.

Seriously, ABC, what were you thinking?

The vast majority of date rape drugs are odorless and tasteless.

Why perpetuate the myth for women that if the drink tastes fine, there’s nothing to worry about? Even if that wasn’t the intention (which I hope it wasn’t), why even put forth that idea?

This irresponsiblity puts people at risk. It is an uphill battle to protect people from dating violence (read: our 12-page special section on date rape, or our three-part special on domestic violence) and even the slightest misinformation is harmful to the entire cause.

But the damage is done. Even if ABC News releases another episode where they acknowledge that date rape drugs put in drinks do not make it smell or taste any different, there is an untold number of people who will have watched the first one and not the second. The wrong message will be impressed upon them.

It’s irresponsible. It’s harmful. And it’s dangerous. The moral: do your homework before perpetuating myths to thousands of households of viewers.

Offbeat: A running blog on watching election coverage

Early afternoon: Buses, vans, cars, tricycles and more are lined up in front of the Vaughn Center to take people to the church downtown where people registered to vote with UT addresses must go. Maybe an exaggeration on all the modes of transport, but I heard people were giving rides. Accuracy is overrated.

5:59 p.m.: Polls are about to close somewhere. I have the sound off on the TV, but that means results should start coming in. Better start paying attention.

7:18 p.m.: CNN has someone on screen that looks like the message from Princess Leia where she ends with, “Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you’re my only hope.” Sound is still off, I don’t really care what they are saying.

7:29: CNN definitely has the coolest election-room technology. I wonder where I can get one of those sweet touch screens. Media Services maybe?

7:30: Oh. It looks like McCain took Kentucky and Obama took Vermont. Still not paying much attention. 8-3 McCain.

7:35: Women’s soccer is playing right now. I should probably check that out. At least I know there will be a winner at the end of the day there. 

7:47: South Carolina was called for McCain by NBC. With 0 percent of precincts reporting. That’s some fine reporting there, NBC. 16-3 McCain.

8:01: Whole bunch of polls just closed. Obama takes the lead, claiming Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, D.C. and Illinois. McCain gets Tennessee and Oklahoma. 77-34 Obama. Breaking news: these results surprise exactly no one. I don’t think they actually had to look at the polls in D.C. Maryland, Mass., Delaware and the Dirty Jerz. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a 60 percent for Obama come out of one of those places.

8:21: It’s been, like, 20 minutes. What’s taking so damn long? News Editor Ellery McCardle just pointed out: “Wolf Blitzer sounds like he’s never going to end the sentence.” Well, that’s better than people who, like, always sound like they’re asking a question.

8:36: Pennsylvania for Obama, or so says NBC. I think PBS is on that decision too. The Illinois Senator extends his lead, but will he have a Secretariat-like finish, or a 2007 and 2008 New York Mets-like finish? Powerhouse Vermont is now Obama’s too, and sweet home-that’s-not-my-home Alabama goes to McCain. 103-43, Obama in the lead.

8:38: It looks like Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) is going to be unseated. This is only newsworthy because I had no idea she was still alive, much less in the Senate.  Who knew?

8:41: McCain takes Arkansas, according to ABC. ABC’s electoral count is 102-49. Someone, either ABC or NBC, is doing their math wrong here. Really glad they’re counting exit poll results, too.

8:44: NBC says Georgia for McCain. Just peachy.

8:46: This is baffling. CNN has North Dakota and Montana listed as “battleground states.” Combined they have fewer electoral votes than 38 states. How is that a battleground?

9:11: I got into an unrelated argument. Missed a lot of “calls.” Obama leads 175-76, according to ABC and NBC. CNN says 174-64. While we don’t know who the winner of the election is, we know the loser: math.

9:23: Election over. I’m calling it. Obama took Ohio. Game over.

New Favorite Hobby: Reading JuicyCampus

A writer from the St. Petersburg Times contacted me about the way people at UT use JuicyCampus.com and I had, until that point, barely even looked at the site.

I began to read through the gossip site’s UT page. There were accusations of a girl falling through a door, a discussion about the best sorority on campus, questions about hazing, some nasty comments about varoius people, and, my favorite, comments about The Minaret.

I loved it. It cracked me up. As I read through them, I realized something important: this is like gambling, and it should be used for entertainment. When it becomes a source of news, just like when gambling becomes a source of income, it has gone too far.

Freedom of speech is essential in a free civilization. If your words are stifled, then your opinion is solely your own and cannot be spread among the people.

People are going to post stupid things on JuicyCampus. It’s inevitable. They will be nasty. They will be mean. They will post lies and people will think they are true. But, people will also air serious concerns and many true statements will be placed on the Web site.

Just like when a recreational gambler starts taking high interest loans, or loses the family car to a casino, people who read JuicyCampus as a source of news are going to fail. When you believe everything you read, you fall into a trap of misinformation and lies.

Take it all with a grain (or glass) of salt. I don’t think that JuicyCampus will ever be a competitor with The Minaret, but it makes a nice complement: We are the news, they are the gossip.

Re: the comments about The Minaret:

Too funny. “The Minaret is absolutely a trash newspaper.” “it is the most overrated paper in the history of all school newspapers. the writers believe that they are actually good. Read the minaret if you want to see how not to write!!!!” Hilarious stuff.

I really don’t care if people feel that way. I encourage them to if they really hate us. No one in the public eye is loved by everyone.

Some brave cat came to our defense and suggested that people who are angry write the editor. As the editor, I paid special attention to the replies posted there.

And the comedy got better.

“unfortunately i know the editor and far too many people
that write for the piece of s— and i know that
whatever i say will not be published or even considered
because they dont want anyone to tell the truth about
the gossip column of a paper.”

I really can’t think of anyone that I know who would actually write this. If it is someone I know, then they don’t know me at all.

I’m not some censoring jerk who only promotes his own interests. If you have something to say, for the love of God, send it in. I would love to read it. We have an obligation to the truth and the news, and if you submit something that is based in truth and not libelous, you can bet we’ll print it. A long-winded rant filled with mistruths about how much you hate The Minaret probably won’t make it, because it serves no purpose. We have a history of printing anti-Minaret letters to the editor, so don’t count it out.

Please, please, please, if you hate us, let us know. Don’t post it anonymously on some gossip Web site. I like my hate mail delivered to my inbox; I don’t like to work to find it.

One last comment on the Minaret thread that caught my attention: “to me the minaret is no different than a gossip column that tries to print slander all over our campus.”

A) The Minaret is a newspaper. Not a column.

B) Slander is spoken. Libel is printed. Why can no one get this straight?

C) Did you post this on a gossip site about how another group is gossip-only? Really?

I bet some of these people are the same ones who say ATM Machine and PIN Number. For the record: An ATM Machine is a machine that makes Automated Teller Machines and a PIN Number is a number that organizes Personal Identification Numbers.

 

And I’m glad someone uses The Minaret to line their bunny cage. At least we’re getting recycled.

 

P.S. In the interest of not letting work (Minaret) interfere with play (JuicyCampus) I will remain an observer only. I get enough entertainment reading that I don’t need to post.

 

– Peter Arrabal, editor-in-chief

Speaking Anonymously

Too many people have a blatant misunderstanding of the use of anonymous quotes. At The Minaret we weigh the decision to use quotes anonymously or not heavily and at length.

Sources that request anonymity should be granted it when putting their names to a quote can put them in danger, either physical, with their jobs, or legally. If a whistleblower would lose his or her job, their information should be anonymous. If a drug dealer wants to talk about their business for an exposition about the drug trade, it may be appropriate to keep their name anonymous.

However, anonymity is a very dangerous subject for newspapers. An unattributed quote immediately allows the reader to question the authenticity of the quote. Without a name on it, a quote could have come from anywhere. Anonymous quotes routinely get newspapers in trouble.

Too many people request anonymity when they don’t need it. And too many journalists grant it. I have had people approach me with a story about an intramural team running up the score on their opponents, and requesting that I keep their names out of the story.

At the base of this misunderstanding of anonymous quotes is a lack of media literacy. Newspapers have an obligation to the truth, and the truth is more believable when there is a name attached to it. There is nothing to fear by putting your name to 99 percent of quotes.

Last week, we dealt with a number of potentially anonymous quotes. In one, a student was arrested for a misdemeanor. It is my policy at The Minaret that misdemeanor offenders should not have their names put in the article in most cases. However, she was interviewed and had many interesting and provoking statements about the arrest of her and her friend. She made the brave decision to put her name to the quotes and not request anonymity, and the story that was published was balanced and compelling

In our most-read article, a source was used without attribution. This person only wished to be identified as a “mutual friend” of two people in an article. The quote was contrary to public opinion of one subject of the story. However, the quote struck a common chord that was found in dozens of comments regarding the same person. The quote was left anonymous as to not bring unnecessary criticism upon the speaker. For this quote, The Minaret and I have taken huge criticism. People have accused us of making it up. We have been blasted for running a quote that people did not agree with or thought did not include the truth.

This is the consequence that comes with running an unattributed quote. I can assure that we did not make the quote up. I can assure you that the thought was not a singly-held one. I can also assure you that there are hundreds of people who feel opposite of the quote. And both are valid opinions. I don’t pretend to know the truth, but I did use the anonymous quote to offer two sides of the story.

When questioning an anonymous source, and every reader should question them, one major thing to think about is this: why would an author falsify that quote? Does the writer have something to gain by making it up?

It’s very easy to criticize without thinking. It’s very easy to throw stones. One of the things I have trouble comprehending is why people use anonymous Web site comments to blast an anonymous source. It happens over and over again for us. Why?

On Recent Coverage

The past few weeks have certainly been interesting. We have covered more news than I have seen in my entire Minaret career. There have been arrests, rearranged leadership, new organizations, political visits and more. We have seen it all.

We have drawn little serious criticism until an issue was released this morning. In this weekly release, we expanded on a breaking news story we released last Friday about four UT students who were arrested for breaking into cars at the USF game. We also covered a pair of students arrested in Ybor City, one for battering a police officer, and both for obstructing an officer. We published an article about a student accused by another student of battery and false imprisonment. We covered the 2007 murder of a student, which has drawn the most criticism.

Much of the negativity surrounds 64 words of the total 1,111words in the article. Samantha MacQuilliam died in 2007, allegedly at the hands of her boyfriend, Matthew Dieterle. The two had an on-again, off-again relationship for three years, according to her mother. Dieterle also had an arrest record longer than your arm, which MacQuilliam’s mother had no idea about.

As part one of a three-part series highlight Domestic Abuse Awareness Month, we published the article, authored by myself, editor-in-chief Peter Arrabal, highlighting the life and death of the young student. Her mother and cousin expounded greatly on her life and her past. They told stories about her childhood in a three-hour interview at MacQuilliam’s mother’s house in Gambrills, Md.

As part of our coverage, we compiled quotes from e-mails, calls and comments left on our Web site from the initial series of stories on her murder from 2007. Many of them included an aspect of MacQuilliam’s life that was not mentioned by her mother and cousin and friends. The quote used in the story was one that struck a common chord among all the comments — that MacQuilliam’s whole story isn’t told by her family and friends.

We did not seek to put a negative light on MacQuilliam’s life. We did not seek to say it was her fault she was murdered, nor that she deserved it. No one deserves to die. Samy MacQuilliam did not deserve to die.

The article published was a balanced view of who this fellow student was. Many people on campus had no idea that a student was murdered last year as a result of alleged domestic violence.

The point of the article was certainly not to say she was responsible for her own death. One of the most interesting parts of authoring it was that her mother had no idea about much of their relationship. She had no idea he had a police record that involved a number of felony arrests, or that he had spent time in jail. She had no idea that he was arrested multiple times in Florida. She had no idea that they were even together anymore. Certainly, no person can know everything that occurs in their child’s life, and that includes the matter quoted.

We don’t pretend to know what happened between the two of them. What we published is a balanced account provided by many people. We leave it up to the reader to ascertain the truth.

I can’t say this enough: we will print what we know. We will correct what is wrong. In this article, we have found a mistake where we said that Matthew was arrested in Maryland in June. He was arrested in Florida, and we have corrected it after it was brought to our attention.

I welcome comments, criticisms and complaints. It is part of the process of being a journalist. I am always available via e-mail at parrabal@gmail.com and you may also set up a meeting with me in The Minaret office.

I stand by my story. If I am proven wrong, I will gladly and humbly correct what was wrong.

– Peter Arrabal

An Invitation

I welcome and invite you to take a behind-the-scenes look at The Minaret, the student newspaper at The University of Tampa.

This blog will address concerns, questions, comments and more involving our coverage of the UT community.

We will discuss editorial decisions, choices, mistakes, corrections, rejected stories and more. If there is ever a question about what we do, we ask that you address it to us directly.

We will write what we know. We will correct what we know is wrong. Most importantly, we have a dedication to covering the news. We do not have any agenda. We do not have biases. We are the newspaper of record for the University of Tampa and will uphold our standards to the highest level.

– Peter Arrabal