As much as it aspires to hold itself to high journalistic standards, The Dartmouth is not The New York Times. That's not to say that our daily publication doesn't have competent, committed writers and a well-trained staff we do. To me, the greatest difference is in subject matter. Powerhouse newspapers such as The New York Times break stories that ruin lives, influence public policy and win Pulitzer prizes; the front page of the latest edition of The Dartmouth featured a picture of a student training to use a fire extinguisher. I don't mean to trivialize this work done by The Dartmouth. It's important to our student life, but usually not important enough to show up in the pages of Newsweek. Too often, however, The Dartmouth attacks these local stories with Bob Woodward-esque fervor.
Recently, The Dartmouth published an article in which it disclosed the name of two students arrested for illegal drug possession ("Police arrest two on drug-related charges," July 14). While such details are often routinely printed in news sources, it still upsets me. A trade-off exists between the public's right to know and a person's right to privacy. Identifying this student and alumnus contributed very little to the public's understanding of the event. I recognize that the information is public record, and that The Dartmouth isn't the only available source for this information.
For that reason especially, I find it superfluous to print the names. If motivated enough, a curious and determined student could easily identify the students specifically, so printing their names only serves to inform people outside of our community. By catering to this group, outside of the College's community, The Dartmouth unfairly harms its own primary readership.
Another unfortunate consequence of printing stories such as this is the unfair stigma it places on the students involved. The culpability for this, however, lies not with The Dartmouth. Students and the public at large too often associate an arrest as an affirmation of guilt. "They must have done something wrong," we think, "or they wouldn't have been arrested." This mentality is wrong. As clich as it is, a person actually is innocent until proven guilty. Although The Dartmouth is not to blame for these erroneous assumptions, the paper's staff should recognize that students will be unfairly judged based on the information they publish. Moreover, The Dartmouth should recognize the scope and accessibility of its stories.
Because The Dartmouth has a web site, anyone with Internet access can view what the newspaper publishes online. Although one could contend that future employers will background check a candidate anyway, printing information such as that included last Friday public is detrimental, particularly since it is publicly available, and the students have not been actually convicted. The Dartmouth maintains that it will follow the drug case and will print the verdict of a trial, should one occur. But by then, the damage will be done. Not only will these students be stigmatized, perhaps unfairly, but there may already be negative ramifications concerning their families or employers. Court proceedings occur over a long period of time, and the public's interest will surely expire before a verdict occurs. So if a story does appear that exonerates the students, there's little chance it will be read and digested with as much enthusiasm as the first releases were.
The Dartmouth strives to be a professional quality newspaper. That's one of the reasons I like writing for it. But it makes me uneasy that the paper's editors use the same professional standards of newspapers that are breaking historic stories on our small college campus. Two students being arrested for drug possession cannot compare with the CIA's water-boarding interrogation techniques. Although what they do is legal, I would like to see more restraint and more respect from The Dartmouth's editors. It isn't censorship I'm advocating, but rather a greater willingness to accommodate its primary readership and a better recognition of the negative consequences of their actions.
