PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

On Feb. 26 the board of directors of Vanderbilt Student Communications Inc. voted to remove Jarred Amato from the position of editor in chief of The Vanderbilt Hustler. The various communities that staff, support and consume campus media at Vanderbilt are entitled to an explanation of what happened and why, and so we attempt to provide that here.

It says "Publisher's Note" at the top of this statement, but many readers may not be aware of who actually publishes The Hustler. Vanderbilt Student Communications is an independent, nonprofit corporation that since 1967, by agreement with Vanderbilt University, serves as the publisher and exclusive authority for all officially sanctioned student media on campus. The corporation, governed by a board of directors composed of three faculty members and five students, employs a staff of five full-time and two part-time professionals who provide expert technical, journalistic, managerial and business advice and assistance to the many students who make the various print and electronic media enterprises work. The board selects (hires) students to run each of VSC's divisions, including The Hustler and InsideVandy.com, and can remove a VSC division head by a two-thirds vote. That's what happened here.

The events that led to this action stem from a Hustler sports feature that over successive issues invited readers to vote online in a tournament-style popularity contest involving campus athletes. Online voting results in a given round were supposed to determine "contestants" in the next round. Prior to the Feb. 8 edition of the newspaper, however, editor Amato elected to ignore the actual results of the previous voting round, fabricate results to yield a different balloting outcome, and present to readers of both The Hustler and InsideVandy.com the ballot for the next voting round derived from falsified results.

In short, the editor knowingly published false information both in the paper and on the Web site. Moreover, he did so after being explicitly cautioned to reconsider. Before the deception went to press, a VSC staff member (with a background in both collegiate and professional journalism) who was working with the students on technical aspects of the feature became aware of the fabrication. She told the editor that manipulation of the survey results raised issues of "journalistic integrity" and suggested the feature should "honestly reflect the outcome" of prior voting. Nonetheless, the version of the feature that appeared in the paper and online the next day included the deception.

After the falsified material appeared, the VSC Director Chris Carroll told the editor that its publication abridged tenets of "journalistic integrity, academic integrity and the honor and conduct that Vanderbilt expects from its students." In the next edition of the paper, on Feb. 11, Amato published an apologetic "Editor's Note" in which he drew an analogy between his own feeling of regret and that of an infielder who muffs a ground ball. This analogy, we note, is inapt: The publication of false information was not an editorial miscue; it was deliberate deception.

In contemplating how to react to these events, the VSC board wrestled with three ideas in tension. First, we regard integrity as fundamental to effective journalism within VSC media, just as academic and personal integrity are fundamental to Vanderbilt University. Honesty as a value is essential to ethical journalism, just as it is central to the ideal of an ethical and honorable university community.

Second, VSC through its board and professional staff encourages students involved in campus media to cultivate a serious sense of professionalism in their work, and holds them to high standards of practice and ethics. We do this for a couple of reasons. One is that many students who participate actively in VSC enterprises aspire to and ultimately pursue careers in journalism and media. For them, given a university with no major in journalism, the campus press is their classroom and their professional training ground. High standards are also crucial because a critical part of VSC's mission is providing the campus community with forums for the dissemination of news, free exchanges of ideas and outlets for creative work - all in the service of a vibrant university in a democratic society.

But third, we do not take lightly the "S" in VSC - the fact that a big part of our mission is to preserve learning opportunities for students within laboratories of live journalism. When learning is involved, risks will be taken and mistakes inevitably will happen. This is not to say that all lapses are equally tolerable, but we know full well that a board charged with oversight of student activity in an educational context should be measured and prudent rather than draconian when the inevitable occurs.

In weighing the fabrication that occurred, we as a board juggled and balanced these three ideas. We did so realizing that most professional news organizations would treat an infraction like this as a firing offense with little hesitation, but also cognizant that this involves a student newspaper in a collegiate media environment.

After a lengthy and difficult discussion, the board concluded that a willful lie need not and should not be tolerated within the pages of this newspaper, no matter how insubstantial or inconsequential the infraction may seem. In our view, an editor who is explicitly advised to reconsider the ethics of deception before publication, and then prints the lie anyway, lacks the judgment owed to the community of a prestigious national university by its student media and student leaders. Accordingly, we decided to remove the editor, and appointed senior Elizabeth Middlebrooks as editor in chief for the remainder of the spring semester.

This outcome is less about inflicting punishment on an individual than it is about safeguarding the integrity and reputation of the venerable campus media institutions in our care. The most important asset any vehicle for journalism can hold is a covenant of trust with its readers. This is as true for a university's student press as it is for a national newspaper. As the board of the corporation that publishes campus media at Vanderbilt, we deeply regret that this covenant was breached recently in the pages of The Vanderbilt Hustler and InsideVandy.com.

The Board of Directors
Vanderbilt Student Communications, Inc.
www.vscmedia.org
February 29, 2008

Submitted by condoi on Sun, 08/03/2008 - 10:18.

hi

Submitted by Sean Tierney on Sun, 03/16/2008 - 18:49.

Aftermath

I think one of the most dissappointing aspects of this ordeal is how little thought the board seemed to give to the impact their decision would have on The Hustler, and, indeed the entire VSC community. It was clear from the beginning that a firing of Amato woulld lead to shortstaffing on The Hustler, increased grumblings, burned bridges, etc. that would quickly lead to animosity and distrust among the many factions of VSC for years to come and a poorer-quality Hustler (despite Herculean efforts by Elizabeth and others). It can be argued that the board needed to do what it deemed right even if it meant harming VSC. That could very well be true; I wasn't in the room and don't really have an opinion on it. Regardless, once the board made a decisions, it should have immediately discussed and implemented measures to put out fires and save as much of The Hustler's strengths as possible. An advisor or aid should have been hired or appointed to assist with Hustler production at the very least. The board should have immediately drafted a letter like this one to be published to be printed alongside all of the letters calling them out rather than in response. (Did they even stop to consider the idea that students would write in in support of Amato and that the board would have to defend itself?) Moreover, The board should have considered how best to notify Amato. Any disrepect shown to Amato would obviously be used to show incompetence on the part of the board. (And, let's face it, if the board did not consider details such as these, then it truly was acting incompetently.) I don't buy the excuse that members of the booard had to leave immediately afterward and so couldn't tell Amato in person, because that only tells me one thing: They were probably rushing their own decision-making process on such an important issue. Whether or not one agrees with Amato's firing, one cannot help but be dissapointed in the board of directors' lack of vision. The Hustler is the cashcow of VSC, and the board should always be anticipating and preparing for the impacts their decisions will have on the newspaper.

Submitted by Debra Lewis on Tue, 03/11/2008 - 20:20.

Agreed.

"I believe there's a slight inaccuracy in the original post here. VSC bylaws indicate that VSC has authority over student media "funded in whole or by part by student activity fees." They DO NOT, by their own wording, have "exclusive authority" over all student media." I agree with your interpretation. However, I can say from personal experience that VSC strongly believes that it has absolute authority over every student publication. At least, that's what I was told last year by Bruce Barry, when I questioned a decision and asked for an explanation of said decision (I never got an explanation, either, although I got some really great incoherent double-talk). Oh, also, apparently the VSC answers to no one and is a corporation entirely separate from the university. Ifound Chris Carroll to be a reasonable man and a nice guy. He is the one who has the most interactions with the papers, and so is most likely to be labeled the villain - he's the only one who actually bothers to tell student representatives what's going on. He seems to think that students do deserve explanations and deserve to know what's going on with their publications. I was not, however, impressed with Barry, the board's chairman, and am appalled that Vanderbilt allows an organization to govern student media without any limits or constraints. People in student media have been complaining about VSC for years now, because they frequently make bad decisions without consulting the majority of students (no, three or four student representatives on the board does not cut it) or even the students involved in decisions. But guess what, guys? Since they answer to no one, there's nothing you can do about it. But what do I know? I'm just a girl!

�

-Debra Lewis Delta Gamma Vanderbilt '08

Submitted by BenKarp on Sat, 03/01/2008 - 20:29.

I believe there's a slight

I believe there's a slight inaccuracy in the original post here. VSC bylaws indicate that VSC has authority over student media "funded in whole or by part by student activity fees." They DO NOT, by their own wording, have "exclusive authority" over all student media. Second, the notion that the board/Chris Carroll care about about the "student" part of VSC is absurd. The Vanderbilt Review, The Slant and Versus had their budgets slashed this year. Versus, to the point where they had budget to plan to publish just one issue a semester, before they were forced to fold into the Hustler (to free up budget for web design?). The Vanderbilt Review's lower budget, from what I've heard, makes it so they have to put some of their work and art online, which is not nearly as satisfying a result for students who have put considerable effort into their craft. Carroll's lack of support, or as it has been suggested, blatant contempt, for the readership program, indicates a lack of understanding of what students need. Students don't need, solely, a student newspaper with a monopoly over the campus media market. We need various newspapers and multiple points of view, including access to professional products like the New York Times that can serve as an inspiration and model. And we need various outlets for expression that let us work in tight-knit communities that serve our niches and passions, not a one-size-fits-all student newspaper. That said, Amato is a good sports writer, I hope he recovers from his lapse in editorial judgment, and best wishes to Elizabeth as she takes over a challenging job.

Submitted by Kevin McNish on Fri, 02/29/2008 - 17:34.

...

"Also.. I know a lot of people who sent in rants today in support of Amato.. why didn't those get published? Funny.... Katherine Miller, the opinion editor (who has the say on what gets published), is on the VSC board and probably doesn't want to allow people to express their disgust with the boards decision. I bet she was upset all those things got published in Wednesdays edition.. as it undermined her and her cronies (other members of the Torch) decision." Do you have any proof of this, or just an ax to grind with the Torch? If you're going to make irresponsible speculation without the courage to put your name to it, you might as well save it for juicycampus. Kevin McNish Arts & Science '08 Author's note: this is a private communication in no way representing the opinion of the Torch staff or editorial board, or any other division of VSC. It is solely my opinion.

Kevin McNish Arts & Science '08

Submitted by vandykid22 on Fri, 02/29/2008 - 13:21.

Your point is...?

Does anyone else feel like this letter didn't address any of the serious points made by the three articles and the letter to the editor regarding why this decision was unfair? I don't think anyone said what he did was okay.. their points were way beyond that. Seems as though the VSC has nothing to say or refute when it comes to the idea that Chris Carroll, along with the rest of the board, conducted themselves unprofessionally and used this as a scapegoat to punish Amato and the rest of the Hustler for supporting the collegiate readership program along with many other things. "The most important asset any vehicle for journalism can hold is a covenant of trust with its readers" is what the article said.. yet look at all of Amato's support? No reader on campus has lost trust in him as editor, so if thats the most important thing than whats the problem? Leaders from around campus along with 3 of his fellow colleagues wrote articles in resounding support for him, I think this is a testament to his hard work, dedication, and passion for bringing news to the Vanderbilt community. Also.. I know a lot of people who sent in rants today in support of Amato.. why didn't those get published? Funny.... Katherine Miller, the opinion editor (who has the say on what gets published), is on the VSC board and probably doesn't want to allow people to express their disgust with the boards decision. I bet she was upset all those things got published in Wednesdays edition.. as it undermined her and her cronies (other members of the Torch) decision. The VSC's treatment of Amato is just unfair. People love what Amato did for the Hustler and we can already see that the publication is suffering immensely in his absence.

Login or Register to leave comments.

A statement from the VSC Board (publisher of InsideVandy and The Hustler)

hi

Aftermath

Agreed.

I believe there's a slight

...

Your point is...?

Login or Register to leave comments.

Vanderbilt on Twitter

Popular Content