'Yale Daily News' shouldn't have to explain anything

To the Editor:

Molly Ball's remarks in her editorial, "`YDN' owes readers an explanation" [YH, 10/1/99], are as unwarranted as they are harsh. As a former beat reporter for the Yale Daily News (YDN), I am compelled to defend that publication's decision not to expound on the "internal politics" surrounding the managing board of 2000's decision to recuse its editor-in-chief from production.

Before I continue, I should note that I did not witness the procedure that the board took to exclude Editor-in-Chief Isaiah Wilner.

Ms. Ball would have the public believe that the YDN's "failure" to explain its Opinion and Editorials page note, which read, "Because of a potential conflict of interest regarding the...coverage of the...Ward Seven aldermanic primary, Editor-in-Chief Isaiah Wilner was not involved with any aspect of the production of this issue," is tantamount to the failure of a professional news organization to explain how an entirely fabricated story found its way into its pages. I disagree.

Ms. Ball herself admits that the YDN "made a good-faith effort to insure that its audience is not misled." How then could she complain about the YDN's behavior? She claims that the italicized note was not featured prominently because it appeared on page eight. She also claims that the italicized statement was never explained.

If these are Ms. Ball's only reasons for criticizing the YDN's actions, she certainly is not persuasive.

In response to her first point, concerning the prominence of the YDN's notice: (1) The Opinion and Editorials section on page eight is among the most popular pages in the paper. It is distinctive in its content and it draws a wide cross-section of the student body and faculty. (2) The Opinions and Editorials page is the proper place for such a notice. All opinions and official statements of the news organization's administration appear on the Op-Ed page. It would be to the discredit of any news organization to feature such content on pages which also contain statements of fact, lest readers not be able to differentiate between the two.

In response to her second point, concerning the paper's explanation of the notice: Wilner, who was referred to in the original Gosar article on page one, was identified as both a member of Gosar's campaign staff and as editor-in-chief of the YDN. That report is a good enough explanation of the "potential conflict of interests" for my money.

But, it apparently was not good enough for Ms. Ball's taste. She wanted a page-one explanation of exactly how the paper was run in Wilner's absence. To put it bluntly, she is not entitled to one.

First, the YDN does not look into itself for its content. Had it done so, it would have missed the more important spectacle going on in the New Haven political arena.

Second, the YDN is not equipped to report on itself. Personal and professional loyalties hamper the prospect of objectivity in reporting on such a story. (I think the difference to the Boston Globe case she cites is obvious.)

Finally, Ms. Ball wanted to know who supervised production in Wilner's absence and "what went on in the boardroom." Ms. Ball is ignorant of the organization of the YDN. In fact, it is often the case that the Editor-In-Chief takes no part in the production of an issue. The decisions on content are not necessarily his or his alone. A great number of dedicated people make the YDN work. All that this incident proves is that the YDN can behave responsibly and maintain its objectivity. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so in the coming year.

—Phil Fortino, SY '00

Back to Opinion...