Ombudsman Ostrem is critical of the Daily Cal's handling of the football player article, claiming that it creates a perception of an attack not backed up by the facts.

After a few initial facts, the article reads like an "attackers vs. victims" story. At first, those involved in the fight are called "combatants." But later, those on the football player's side, now perceived as African American thanks to the photograph of the football player, are referred to as "attackers." This characterization follows a fraternity member's account of what happened, quoting him saying that "it was an unprovoked attack."

So far, the perception is this: A group of African-American high school and college students attacked a group of fraternity members. But the newspaper did not include sufficient evidence to warrant this perception. Including only the fraternity member's side of the story slants the entire account.

First, how does this create the perception that it was a solidly black group that attacked the Fraternity? The sole reference to race is that the football player happens to be black-- and that in a picture, not stated. The only way to generalize this is to assume that if one of the attackers was African-American, they all had to be-- a more telling bias then anything in the article. If Mr. Ostrem thinks an African-American would only be involved if everyone else was black as well, that's one thing. But he's assuming every reader shares the same perception about black self-segregation, which is fairly insulting.

Also, what's wrong with the article's facts? Mr. Ostrem isn't quoting the Fraternity's version of events, he's quoting the police's.

'Police are not sure what precipitated the fight, but it appears to have included a mixture of high school and college students, (Berkeley Police Sergeant) Odom said.'

All the Fraternity member said was that 'a large group of people tried to enter the house' and 'it was an unprovoked attack.' Both of these are factually obvious. When Mr. Ostrem objects to the phrase

A group of African-American high school and college students attacked a group of fraternity members. But the newspaper did not include sufficient evidence to warrant this perception

he's, first, projecting a very shaky reading of his own onto their ethnicity, and two, claiming the cop's statement doesn't have 'sufficient evidence.' It's standard newspaper practice to trust police statements.

Mr. Ostrem also misses the section of the article that probably pissed off the protesters the most-- the profile of Grey in the bottom of the article. Considering he had just been arrested, wasn't charged with anything, etc, it was definitely premature to overview his ties to the football team and call Cal Athletics for a comment. And if that section hadn't been in, maybe the photo wouldn't've run, etc.

Mr. Ostrem's article closes with a call for more 'diversity' and 'understanding' between African-Americans and the Daily Cal, which presumably means coverage of positive black events. I'm skeptical. This means, in practical terms, hiring a black reporter who knows the community well. But whoever that is is probably working for Onyx Express already, Cal's perfectly good African-American student newspaper. And, having read Onyx, there doesn't appear to be much 'hard news' to cover. It's a small community, and nothing much earthshaking seems to happen. The Daily Cal could try making an agreement with them, where they could temporarily write for the Daily Cal when some big news story comes up that should come out right away. Worth looking into.

Other then that, tho, any 'dialog' is bound to founder on the rocks of mutual distrust and incompatible goals. Every community, especially the leaders, want positive feature stories on them without much criticism. Barring that, they just don't want critical news stories. And they want monitors in place to warn them about upcoming negative coverage. Since both of these violate journalistic norms, everyone's better off not making the attempt.

Email This Post!