Word: grapes
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Though The Crimson staff did take an editorial position in favor of the grape boycott, it made efforts to ensure that news coverage was balanced. In my own analysis of the grape articles published between Oct. 28 and Dec. 5, I find that pro-grape and anti-grape viewpoints are given at least equal time...
...stories I edited, I looked to make sure that both sides of the issue were highlighted. Because we did profile Adam R. Kovacevich ['99]'s family quite prominently, it was important that we balance that piece with another front-page story about the conditions facing the majority of California grape workers, which we did do the next...
...publication of letters and commentaries evidenced a great diversity of student opinion as well. Even the opinions of those who did not care at all about the grape issue were voiced. The Crimson, however, is a newspaper, not a megaphone. Simply providing a forum for the propaganda of all sides is not, in itself, responsible journalism...
Readers have indicated to me that additional information was missing in The Crimson's coverage. One reader suggested that profiles of one grape grower and one ex-grape worker were insufficient to portray either their respective sides of the debate or the controversies surrounding worker conditions. The context of grapes as a national issue was conspicuously absent. Crimson readers have told me that they had not heard of the grape boycott before it became an issue at Harvard. A more thorough examination of the historical prominence and symbolism of the grape boycott would have put the issue in context...
...grape referendum has shown the tremendous impact and presence that The Crimson can have on campus, especially now that the paper is free to all undergraduates. The Crimson has shown its sensitivity to presenting a range of opinions and avoiding bias in its coverage. However, diversity alone does not ensure responsible journalism. The Crimson staff should be conscious that it is running a newspaper, not a public access channel. The shortcomings in Crimson coverage probably did not bias voting toward either side of the debate. The only losers were the voters, who lost the chance to get beyond the poster...