Wednesday, March 5, 2008
News / News Bites Medill faculty doesn't take a stand
Posted by Michael Miner on Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM
The Medill faculty spun its wheels Wednesday, defeating an innocuous resolution written in response to "Quotegate," the controversy over much more than a quote. Here's the resolution: "We the faculty of Medill accept Dean John Lavine's apology for poor judgment in not properly attributing a source in a letter he wrote to the alumni in the spring of 2007 issue of Medill magazine. We look forward to working with Dean Lavine as full partners in the future."
This resolution went down 22 to 14. One faculty faction opposed it because it's so wimpy -- it says nothing about the running-sore question of whether there was a source in the first place. A larger faction, composed of marketing professors, opposed it on grounds that the dispute was silly and Lavine owed no one an apology. A third faction believed the resolution ignored the most important issue -- Northwestern provost Daniel Linzer's unsatisfactory report that claimed a blue-ribbon committee had vindicated Lavine.
The resolution's champions believed it would let Medill move beyond an issue about which the truth will probably never be known.
Dean Lavine, present for the faculty meeting, abstained.
Some faculty felt a second resolution voted on Wednesday also addressed the matter: "We the faculty and the dean vigorously uphold the fundamentals of truth, accuracy, ethics and fairness in journalism and in all communications." Despite the careless omission of apple pie, this passed 29 to 7, Dean Lavine voting aye.
A third resolution proposed that the faculty and dean commit themselves to deliberating and voting on the new Medill curriculum that Lavine has introduced before it is fully implemented next year. Here we get to Quotegate's yeasty back story, the sense among the journalism (as opposed to marketing) faculty that Lavine is ramming change down their throats. This resolution was defeated on a tie vote, 17 to 17.
On another front, there's been an exchange of e-mails between Professor David Protess and Provost Linzer's office. Protess is hoping to find out how that blue-ribbon committee went about its work and whether it actually submitted a report.
Showing 1-5 of 5
Lavine IS ramming change down the throats of the J-school faculty. But what are the protesting professors to do, at this point, when it's clear that the Provost isn't going to have the so-called ad hoc committee (which, from what I've read, consists of the son of someone who is buddy-pals with Lavine, himself, if there's truth to this angle of the whole story) even contact the students who denied the quotes? It's been made pretty clear that they don't count. I mean, you'd kind of give up on people if you thought it was otherwise futile, too. Protess and Spett are the maverick heroes in this whole affair, as both have put themselves out there, risking verbal harassment and ridicule from other professors, and yet they both know that what they did was right, to demand Lavine prove his quotes were authentic. As for Protess still pushing for more info on the so-called blue-ribbon committee, more power to him. One must know that Protess has done excellent work in journalism with regards to cases of wrongful conviction. If he's got the gumption to keep the heat on, good for him. More power to Spett and Protess in their current and future careers. The wrongfully convicted and the honest journalists of America thank them.
Is there any reporting on which faculty voted one way.
I noticed a comment about ramming down their throats, more power to him as that may be the only way this industry changes.
I know this issue is kind of dead, but just in case anyone reads up on the Medill controversy and checks out some of the posted comments, I'm tossing in some rather interesting info (maybe someone should do a whole story on this issue, too, since it's a total scandal). Why would Northwestern want to move AWAY from investigative journalism and more into marketing and spin over at Medill? Hmm. Could it be that they are afraid that some good little investigative journalist will come up with info related to the various healthcare scandals surrounding the Searle family or Northwestern Memorial? I mean, this could be far-fetched, but check out some of the skeletons in the closet over at Northwestern in an area that is about millions and millions of dollars, that being the area of healthcare. First off, there's a center over at Northwestern named after the Searle family. What's known about Searle? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDF1238F933A2575AC0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all They made millions in part by marketing the infamous Dalkon Shield, an unsafe IUD. The Searle wealth is managed by one Kinship Trust, too, if I have my facts correct (gee, but what a fun job that must be, managing wealth gained in part by doing real harm to women...how do those people even sleep at night?) Secondly, there's the issue of Northwestern Memorial's former CEO Gary Mecklenberg, who was under investigation by the AG of Illinois and from Connecticut (he ended up resigning, amidst the scandal the culminated in a NYT article entitled "Hospital Chiefs Get Paid for Advice on Selling"). OK. So healthcare is BIG BIG money, right? Especially with the aging population, right? So...might there not be a good reason why Northwestern top brass are more interested in marketing and spin than in solid investigative journalism? Of course! They need to graduate future corporate media and PR people who can pump out lots of spin to counter all of the healthcare scandals! Seriously. Someone get on this healthcare fraud angle. It's a national nightmare that's costing the taxpayers millions when these non-profits that get subsidized by honest citizens end up busted for, or at the very least, investigated for, some serious white-collar style fraud. I mean, no wonder they're terrified of solid investigative journalists over there.
Forgot to add this to the healthcare scandals post above... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1D9143CF937A35750C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all I mean, really. One can see why the investigative journalists tick off the marketing (read: BS and spin) people so much.
Latest in The Blog
-
Too New to Review: Prairie Fire, Leo's Coney Island, the Southern, Revolution Brewing Company, and More
Prairie Fire, Leo's Coney Island of Chicago, the Southern, and other restaurants too new to review.
- Feb 8, 2010
-
Fewer Shoes on the North Side
Times are tough for shoe stores too.
- Feb 8, 2010
-
When Golden Earring Were Good
Wait, Golden Earring was good?
- Feb 8, 2010
- More»
Author Archives
-
Cuban Doctors in Haiti — Are They There? Can American Media See Them?
The doctors Cuba sent to Haiti are getting little notice in American media.
- Jan 19, 2010
-
When Half Empty Is Too Much to Hope For
A look at journalism’s past year and what it might mean for the future
- Jan 7, 2010
-
The Mezuzah Case — A Victory for Judge Diane Wood
- Nov 13, 2009
- More»
Top Commenters
Comments (5) RSS