To the editor:

I am both shocked and appalled by the lack of complete Vanderbilt media coverage regarding the recent assault of two members of the Vanderbilt community ("Students attacked in alleged anti-gay hate crime," Sept. 17).

It is also quite shocking that it has taken over a week for any word of this vicious attack to be made public. Why did it take that long? Why was an entire page devoted to a football game we already know we won? I am quite sure Devin Donovan is a nice young woman. But the article about her foray into "the real world" is wholly inappropriate front-page material, particularly in Monday's issue where the editor-in-chief's words are nothing short of an overt lack of concern for the violence happening on her own campus. Has Vanderbilt student media succumbed to a general trend in American media of guaranteeing readership through spins on the truth and lies of omission? In this case, I would prefer to be offended by reading a student leader's challenge to the student body status quo, than to read something sounding much like the very police report quoted in the article.

The lack of a concerned Vanderbilt media, on part of both The Hustler and Dean of Students Mark Bandas, gives the concerned reader the feeling that homophobia is not our problem by calling this incident both "isolated and anomalous." It is neither. Rather, it is very indicative of "a huge sector of individuals and a lot of people." It is no longer "an internal thing," but something made very external, and quite public, through anti-gay slurs and premeditated violence. The lack of coverage in Monday's Hustler is even more indicative of just how external and apparent this problem is: front page in the paper, yes; front page in the university's mind and worthy of an entire page of text and images in the student paper of one of America's top 20 schools where "Alternative Lifestyles Not an Alternative," not even close.

While it seems that our attention toward noteworthy causes is diverted elsewhere, as Michael Vick has been convicted of dog fighting, the Jena 6 is struggling in Louisiana, and Vanderbilt beat Ole Miss, we have ignored the fact that two of our own were assaulted by their alleged brethren: another Vanderbilt student. It is time to pay attention to what's going on right under our noses, in our dorms and in our own hearts and minds. Rather than turn a deaf ear and cold heart to this issue, now is the time to do something.

Any school or university, much less one many of us choose to call our own, should be a place where we come to be ourselves, where we don't have to live in fear of our own individuality and where we shouldn't be made uncomfortable because we may not be rich, white or straight. If Vanderbilt is to be a place we call home for our tenure as students, you should not have to be violated for being yourself. I implore you, Vanderbilt, to look outside the bubble, to step outside the stereotypes we choose to believe or those we inhabit here in the place we call home, and defend our family against those who have attacked it. This is not a time to take sides. It is a time to join arm in arm, stand together and say, "We have had enough. Today, right now, we stop the hate."

Jon Cochran
Graduate student, Sociology

Submitted by lewisc on Fri, 09/28/2007 - 01:37.

"No one was more outraged

"No one was more outraged about this topic than she, and still DeRoy managed to keep a level head and deliver the facts to the community, despite obstacles you will never heard of. As editor-in-chief of The Slant, it is almost a given that I would poke fun of The Hustler if I thought they deserved it. Instead, I can do nothing but be grateful that Vanderbilt still has people like DeRoy and the others who worked on The Hustler's coverage. How dare you." Do you see how this attitude is a huge problem that undermines an already tenuous argument? And when I made the professor comparison, it was in the sense that I've had experience that's (thankfully) relatively rare but intense and thus it's important people pay attention to it; I didn't mean to condescend in that particular instance (much) and I apologize for condescending before. I've been burned very badly in the past by holding attitudes like the ones displayed in this thread and by not paying attention to readers (albeit unintentionally). So have lots of other media figures. I don't want other people to keep repeating these mistakes. That's all I meant, and ultimately all I've been saying this entire lengthy time.

Submitted by Reeve Hamilton on Fri, 09/28/2007 - 00:36.

Ok

But my point all along has been that you are so focused on making a display of how much you care, which I have never doubted, that you have chosen a poor example upon which to hinge your argument, and you refuse to acknowledge its shortcomings. And just for clarification, when my language did get out of hand, it was always directed at you and not Mr. Cochran, although obviously it was in discussion of his letter. I was glad to have Mr. Cochran express his concerns and never intended to respond to them publicly in anyway since I would much rather let the student body discuss such matters freely - but I do have a problem with you jumping on Sean for one sentence and not only ignoring his arguments (which were also valid) entirely, but responding in a unnecessarily rude and extremely condescending manner. Par for the course, I suppose. So, that is the only reason I chimed in. And I would appreciate it if you would neither imply that you care more than I do about this work nor compare our relationship to that of a professor and a student. That comparison couldn't be further from the truth.

Submitted by Reeve Hamilton on Fri, 09/28/2007 - 00:11.

AND

I will try to tone it down a bit as well.

Submitted by lewisc on Fri, 09/28/2007 - 00:11.

I don't think even after all

I don't think even after all this time and all these posts you quite understand that my concern isn't all that much about the coverage in itself (although it is a factor); it's about how the complaints about the coverage (some of which were pretty valid) were dismissed out of hand in two VSC editors' displays of arrogance more suited to The Hustler of two years ago. Also, I don't see how wanting someone to do a better job is "undermining" them by any means; does a professor who tells you to study a little harder undermine you as well? If I wanted to undermine you I would have remained silent and let you keep doing things like this. I want to see a vibrant and above all HONEST student media that ENGAGES the student community it purports to serve, because aggressive mediocrity and "Hustler syndrome" make all of us look bad. And before you tell me to "practice what I preach," keep in mind absolutely NOBODY can say I didn't care about delivering the best damn work I could, which is all I'm asking (and expecting) from you. It's just that to do that you have to listen to your readers instead of assuming their disagreement about the nature of media means they are wholly wrong and have nothing worth saying.

Submitted by Reeve Hamilton on Thu, 09/27/2007 - 23:50.

Honestly

I do care about what you have to say, which is why I find it frustrating that you seem to be harping on minor details in what appear to be, honestly, to me, attempts to undermine your successors that you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge or even consider the arguments being made and opt instead to melodramatically engage in arguments over semantics. Sean said "How dare you," but that was hardly the crux of his argument. And so, I tried to point out the clear problems with the letter that you missed in your reading of Sean's response, but you haven't, in your numerous responses dealt with any of the things I have brought up. "How could the Hustler be criticized for what is not number one in the hearts and minds of the student body?" (paraphrasing) is a legitimate question - and, instead of answering it, you just complain about the first six words. I realize what you are saying - you think the hate crime warranted something closer to the entire front page - and you didnt like the Donovan article. I didn't like the Donovan article either, but I don't think it took away from the importance the Hustler placed on the hate crime issue. We can disagree on that, that doesn't mean I'm shutting my ears to you or Mr. Cochran. But, his argument had some other problems that you seem to have willfully been ignoring. It seems that I think you are being just as closed-minded as you think I am. So, I appreciate what you are saying, and I do care, but I'd appreciate it if you would , for lack of a better cliche, practice what you preach.

Submitted by lewisc on Thu, 09/27/2007 - 22:37.

I'll believe you're open to

I'll believe you're open to criticism the day I see you engage an opposing opinion honestly instead of a) beating the shit out of strawmen of your own creation or b) attempting to write off concerns out of hand by saying "they're ridiculous" or "these people should get off their soapboxes" or "this person must not have even read the paper." Guess what, Reeve. At some point in your life you're going to have to start dealing with people's concerns honestly and honorably. Allison Malone's efforts pulled The Hustler out of mediocrity and made it a publication I was proud to work for. It's arrogant, don't-give-a-damn attitudes like the one you've displayed in this thread (I think the political publications call things like this "Hustler syndrome") that are going to put it right back down into the muck again. "Nobody at the Hustler has said 'How dare you criticize us!'" "How could someone complain. . ." "And, how could The Hustler be criticized . . ." "Nonsense is frustrating . . ." "I'm saying your assessment is ridiculous . . ." "whatever position he is trying to take is basically rendered invalid . . ." While I will grant you you haven't uttered the exact phrase "HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE US" (and attempting to frame the debate this way is just more dishonest behavior on your part) you sure as hell have shown an identical contempt for your readership by attempting to hand-wave everything away so obviously through your language and dismissive attitude. At this rate, why don't you just post "I don't care about anything you have to say," log off, and call it a night, because that's basically how you dealt with Mr. Cochran's letter and just cutting to the chase with me in a similar fashion would save us both a ton of time.

Submitted by Reeve Hamilton on Thu, 09/27/2007 - 22:17.

Ceaf...

Nobody at the Hustler has said "How dare you criticize us!" Sean Tierney is not affiliated with the Hustler. We are, and always have been, completely open to criticism. Come down off of your soap box.

Submitted by lewisc on Thu, 09/27/2007 - 21:58.

Do you honestly think it's

Do you honestly think it's not disingenuous to claim "NO OTHER STORY RECEIVED THAT MUCH SPACE THIS SEMESTER" when the semester is only a few weeks old? Par for the course, though, I guess. The Hustler seriously needs to get over itself and realize that it's not a paper for the Hustler staff. It's a paper for the readers and a reader has written in concerned about your coverage of an issue. Reader: "Hey, I'm not happy with your coverage on this issue." Good newspaper: "Well, we're sorry to hear that. Come talk to us about it and while we may not implement your suggestions we'll at least listen to you and care about what you have to say." Bad newspaper: "How dare you criticize us! We think our coverage is great and we're going to brush you off even though you're the reason we even exist. We're just too damn proud to even bother to find out if you have a valid concern or not." But, then again, I guess you already have the line on your resume so what do you care about your section being the best it can be or even if you're making fair arguments or not. Oh, and "One of which demonstrates such a lack of understanding of how newspapers work, and the other so illogical, that _whatever position he is trying to take is basically rendered invalid."_ LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU (which, make no mistake, that is EXACTLY what this is) isn't a tactic an editor of anything, even a second-grade class newsletter, should be employing.

Submitted by Reeve Hamilton on Thu, 09/27/2007 - 21:25.

And...

I'm saying your assessment is ridiculous. No other story has received that much space on the front page this semester, so the physical evidence is not on your side. And you are, for reasons I can only guess at, choosing to ignore his arguments that it didn't constitute enough coverage because it a) didn't editorialize enough and b) the issue isn't the main issue in the hearts and minds of the students. One of which demonstrates such a lack of understanding of how newspapers work, and the other so illogical, that whatever position he is trying to take is basically rendered invalid.

Submitted by lewisc on Wed, 09/26/2007 - 17:01.

I did see the paper.

I did see the paper. Apparently I did a better job of reading it than you did of reading my post. Let me spell out my point for you: Basically, this is the same thing as the classic "he-said/she-said" argument. Student: The Hustler doesn't care about this issue. Tierney: Clearly The Hustler cares about this issue! Glenna said she did! These two opinions, neither being backed overtly by solid evidence, have equal weight. What's the only solid evidence we have? The paper! Now, I argue that the paper, the only "record" we have of what The Hustler cares about, favors the student's side in this argument. Did it take a week to get something out, or not? Was the article printed just above an article about a former leader of a now-defunct student organization, or not (honestly that article showed a tremendous lack of editorial judgment and I feel bad for any story placed on the same page regardless if it was "below the fold")? Yes, it got front page coverage, but if you would treat opposing arguments honestly you would see that he is saying that coverage WAS NOT ENOUGH, NOT that there was no coverage. Even the title YOU gave the piece spells it out: "Hate crime media coverage insufficient." So, to sum up so I'm not misrepresented again: Student's concerns: backed by the physical paper. Tierney's concerns: hearsay and circumstance about what went on in the production room. The fact that you can't or won't tell the difference speaks volumes.

Submitted by Reeve Hamilton on Sun, 09/23/2007 - 12:04.

Oh and...

I forgot to address the most absurd assertion - that the article wasn't anti-establishment enough and simply reported what happened. It was a news story, thats exactly what it shouldn't be and should do.

Submitted by Reeve Hamilton on Sun, 09/23/2007 - 12:02.

Oh Ceaf...

I think while Mr. Tierney may have been a little dramatic delivery - his basic point was that the opinion expressed in the letter was utter nonsense, which is almost undeniably true. How could someone complain about a lack of coverage on an issue that had two large simultaneous front page stories dedicated to it ? And, how could The Hustler be criticized for what is not number one in the hearts and minds of Vanderbilt students despite being on the paper's front page? Nonsense is frustrating, and so Tierney got a little carried away. Yes the story about Devin wasn't the most pressing, but it was clearly not being given the same priority as the hate crime story - or did you not see the paper?

Submitted by Sean Tierney on Fri, 09/21/2007 - 04:50.

Am I not allowed to disagree

Am I not allowed to disagree with letters to the editor? I disagree over what constitutes acceptable coverage and I shall say so. I have no problem with anyone ever complaining about content- or lack thereof. What I have a problem with is the misrepresentation of an attempt at objective reporting as a lack of interest. I back up my retort of a character attack with personal experience. The "how dare you," of course, I have no excuse for.

Submitted by lewisc on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 23:35.

RE: Please retract this

First, I'm amazed that people still frame "HOW DARE YOU" as a valid means of argument. Those three words have never once added anything to the common discourse in the entire span of recorded human history. Such pointless moral indignation is basically a more acceptable way of putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to admit that you hear anything from the other side. And if you don't want to hear from the other side, that's great, but the media is probably the wrong outlet for you. Second, The Hustler had better be printing letters critical of its coverage if it receives them. If anything is The Hustler's job, that is, and they don't get a pass on everything else just because they meet that minimum standard. I have a tremendous amount of respect for DeRoy, but being a good person/a talented journalist/what have you doesn't mean people can't criticize The Hustler's coverage. If I learned anything in my four years of media experience at Vanderbilt, this isn't a business where you get a gold star for effort and you can't minimize the fact that someone feels wronged by The Hustler's coverage by saying, "Well, I think the coverage is great and as the editor of esteemed campus publication The Slant my word carries more weight than yours." So you don't think the staff dropped the ball. Wonderful, but apparently a lot of people do and even if you don't agree with them you have to take their thoughts into account instead of trying to brush them away. Even if The Hustler truly did everything they could, and having worked with most of the current staff I have no doubt they did, printing pointless fluff stories such as "Alumna starts job at local firm" (http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/4763) on the very same page didn't help matters at all. You can talk about DeRoy's commitment to the issue all you want, but you also have to keep in mind that The Hustler's readership only sees the printed page, not the long hours in the office. If you haven't learned that yet in your undoubtedly extensive journalistic training, there is absolutely no better way you could be spending your time right now than by doing so. That's how you become a better journalist, not by demanding apologies from people for the crime of feeling wronged and speaking up about it.

Submitted by Sean Tierney on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 14:17.

Please retract this

This was a disappointing letter to read. If you want to rehash Monday's "Our View" and urge the Vanderbilt community to become more tolerant, that's one thing. Accusing a talented journalist of recklessness for simply doing her job is another. As for why it took a week for this story to come to light in The Hustler, there are several reasons. First, the Hustler staff was not immediately aware of the attack. Information was also difficult to come by. I assure you, The Hustler never for one moment considered holding back the story because they felt it wasn't important enough. Instead, they chose to avoid the sensationalist route and instead print the stories when they had enough information to give the issue the coverage it deserves while still doing so in a timely fashion. You complain that some of the pages devoted to other issues. What did you want? An eight-page expose on one fight? Perhaps replace the crossword puzzle with a superfluous photo of the Quizno's where the attack took place just in case anyone on campus doesn't know where it is? What "images" did you think The Hustler would be able to print? A punch-by-punch pictorial? Most appallingly, you accuse the editor-in-chief of "an overt lack of concern for violence happening on her own campus" and that The Hustler has gotten caught up in spin and lies. Clearly, you need a refresher in journalism. You see, typically in news articles, writers "report" the "news" free of bias so that readers may form their own opinions. It is not Glenna DeRoy's responsibility to tell her readership what they should think. As a member of Vanderbilt Student Communications, I had the privilege to watch DeRoy this past week as she went above and beyond anything asked of her while working on this issue. No one was more outraged about this topic than she, and still DeRoy managed to keep a level head and deliver the facts to the community, despite obstacles you will never heard of. As editor-in-chief of The Slant, it is almost a given that I would poke fun of The Hustler if I thought they deserved it. Instead, I can do nothing but be grateful that Vanderbilt still has people like DeRoy and the others who worked on The Hustler's coverage. How dare you. Finally, you take Dean Bandas' quote out of context. He was referring to the assault, not to homophobia. I think you'll agree that an unprovoked assault on campus would indeed be an "isolated and anomalous incident." Despite all this, The Hustler still printed your letter (alongside two other letters about bigotry and a new article on the assault). Why? Perhaps it is that, even after all the hard work the staff has put in, after all the interviews, the phone calls, the arguments, the harrying, after you throw its tireless efforts back in its face, The Hustler remains committed to telling every story- from every angle- as best as it possibly can. So committed to the issue of gay rights is The Hustler, that it will print- in its very own pages- criticism about its admirable coverage to ensure that every voice is heard from. You owe Dean Bandas, Glenna DeRoy, and the rest of The Hustler staff an apology.

Login or Register to leave comments.

Hate crime media coverage insufficient