Alessandro van den Brink | False Alarm

Small Talk | Quoting opposing opinions isn’t tantamount to bias

By Alessandro van den Brink 10/25/16 10:32pm

Last week, The Daily Pennsylvanian ran an article about Wharton sophomore Eric Hoover, who posted in the Penn Class of 2019 Facebook group that he intends to form a chapter on campus of a pro-life group called Students for Life of America (SFLA). Naturally, Hoover’s post caused a bit of chaos in the group as pro-choice advocates began to berate him with comments such as “welcome to the middle ages.”

While there’s no data to back this up, it’s probable that most Penn students are pro-choice and take great offense at those who would suggest that abortion be made illegal. Yet, in the interest of freedom of expression, all voices on a very legitimate and contentious issue such as this should be heard and represented on this campus. It goes without question that Hoover should be allowed to create a chapter of SFLA on campus, particularly since he attracted interest from approximately 15 students.

That’s not what I want talk about though. The Statesman, Penn’s conservative-leaning periodical, also published an article on the controversy surrounding SFLA — written by fellow columnist Jeremiah Keenan. Both The Statesman’s and the DP’s accounts of the backlash towards Hoover and pro-life stances on abortion were intriguing articles with lots of valuable information.

Unfortunately, the members of the board of The Statesman weren’t pleased with the DP’s article in the slightest.

The Statesman’s board published an article the same day the first newspaper article was published, condemning the DP for displaying “overwhelming bias against Penn’s pro-life community.”

On the face of it, it is quite audacious for a publication to be critical of bias, journalistic integrity and “incendiary remarks” while simultaneously publishing articles with headlines like “Penn Students Memorialize Terrorists.” Never mind the clear conflict of interest in the fact that Hoover serves as the publication’s editorial editor and finance director. Something about stones and glass houses?

Media bias is a very serious accusation and only 32 percent of Americans say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the media to report the news fairly and accurately — the lowest recorded value in Gallup’s polling history. We should absolutely call out media sources when they feed us garbage, but The Statesman’s reaction is completely over the top and a pathetic attempt to make it seem as though Penn’s very own official newspaper is attempting to dismiss opposing beliefs. It’s not.

The Statesman’s critique starts by claiming that the writer of the DP’s article, Rebecca Tan, blatantly misquoted Hoover in the line, “Rape is a horrific act of violence... possibly the worst crime imaginable. I don’t think that you’re not going to solve the act of violence like that with another act of violence.” In an audio clip of the interview with Hoover, it’s clear that the “not” included in the last sentence was mistakenly added.

The Statesman, in classic conspiracy theory fashion, argues that by including the “not,” Tan was deliberately attempting to make it seem as though Hoover had no idea what he was talking about by using a double negative. This claim is simply absurd. Sure, there was a minor error in transcribing the interview with Hoover, but even with the “not” still intact, Hoover’s argument is just as clear and most people who thought Hoover sounded absurd most likely didn’t think so just because of the double negative. And, for the record, the DP has corrected the quote in the online version of the article and included an editor’s note apologizing for the mistake.

Next, The Statesman claims that all of the opinions of students reported were pro-choice and that there wasn’t enough diversity in reporting. This is a legitimate point and Keenan’s article does a much better job of including quotes from people on both sides of the issue.

However, The Statesman overexaggerates the one-sidedness by including a quote from Carol Tracy in which she states that she is “opposed as anyone towards the pro-life agenda,” yet neglecting to include the part where she claims, “However, they have a right to be here.”

The Statesman made the error of believing that the quotes in Tan’s article were chosen in order to promote one ideology over another, but the whole point of the article was to report on backlash to Hoover’s SFLA proposition, which Tan did. Calling out an article just because it doesn’t serve as a puff piece for your side is unprofessional on the part of The Statesman and an insult to the DP’s integrity as a publication.