The away message of the Crimson's associate managing editor said it all: "does anyone have a spiderhole i can borrow for a few days?"

The newsroom staff at 14 Plympton Street is agog this weekend over top editors' handling of what should have been a minor incident: a single poorly sourced column. Now the campus is talking about the paper's credibility, and the controversy is entirely of their own creation.

At 3 a.m. Friday, Crimson president Will Marra '07 decided to pull a news story on columnist Victoria Ilyinsky's firing from the print edition, and posted it online the following morning instead. Managing editor Dan Hemel '07 ran a blank space on page three in protest -- the universal journalism symbol for "CENSORED," and an unmistakably public Eff You to his boss.

Marra explained in an email to the news staff that he wanted to let the paper's opinion editors have first dibs at addressing the flap with an editor's note. "Holding off for a few hours with the story did not at all undermine news' credibility (and among our readers would have only increased it)," Marra wrote. But in what universe does withholding news increase cred? In an effort to be hyper-ethical (or just cover his own ass), Marra's bending over backward just became convoluted.

Crimson bigshots flipped. Former managing editor Zach Seward (who covers Harvard for the Wall Street Journal) slammed Marra's "extraordinarily cryptic" decisionmaking. "The Crimson was censored on Thursday night," Seward wrote everyone. Sitting on hot news for arcane reasons of propriety, while the Boston Globe and others wrote all about it, meant "the paper was, in perhaps a first, willfully scooped. To protect its own credibility? It's like destroying the village in order to save it." The rest of his blistering critique is after the jump, along with Hemel's response. (Marra didn't respond to our interview request; the author of the news story had no comment.)

We don't have enough buckets to catch all the Crimson leakage. Editors are pissed. Alumni are coming out of the woodwork with questions. Everyone agrees: Marra screwed up. 

Does it get worse? Yup. History seemed to repeat itself this weekend when news staffers - remember blood in the water? -- discovered that an editorial cartoon by Kathleen E. Breeden, '09, bore similarities to another cartoon published recently in Newsday. As with the Ilyinsky piece, CrimEds spent Sunday night waffling over publishing their news piece in the print edition vs. online. Last we heard, the story's gonna be in the paper.

Click through for e-mail correspondence.

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Daniel Hemel Date: Oct 28, 2006 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [NEWSTALK] Re: [CRIMEDS] A note on our Ilyinsky coverage To: Zachary Moses Seward Cc: Newstalk-l I understand that Will had a difficult decision to make Thursday night. I believe that he acted with the best of intentions. I continue to respect his leadership. I look forward to working with him for the next three months and beyond. That said, I believe he made a mistake Thursday night. By expressing my opinion, I hope to ensure that the future presidents on this e-mail chain avoid those same mistakes in the future. (1) Anton's article was newsworthy, and it corrected misconceptions that readers might have had after reading the editors' note. The note did not answer several key questions. It does not explain when and how the Crimson learned about the similarities. Inasmuch as it describes the "investigation" of Ilyinsky, its statement is not entirely forthcoming: "Since the publication of that note, we have continued to investigate whether the piece properly cited all of its sources." That sentence suggests that the ed board acted with "all deliberate speed" (Warren 1954, qtd. in Ogletree 2004). We were first informed about the similarities on Oct. 16 - through an e-mail to me from a Crimson reader. I forwarded that e-mail to the ed board immediately. It wasn't until Oct. 23 that the ed board printed its first correction on the column's attributions. And a full 12 days elapsed between the first allegations of plagiarism and the ed board's final decision to cut the column. Moreover, the overlapping sportscaster's quote, brought to the ed board's attention on Oct. 24, was not uncovered by an ed board "investigation"; rather, news editor and magazine exec April Yee, using good reporting skills, identified the similarities. For all these reasons, I thought Anton's factual account of the case added news value and merited placement in the print edition. (2) Will writes that he wanted to avoid "the impression that the news board had scooped the editorial board." But the Boston Globe posted an article about the Crimson's decision to its website Thursday night and printed the article Friday morning. Will's decision did not prevent the news board from scooping the ed board. Rather, Will forced the news board into a position in which it would be scooped by the Boston Globe. And, of course, in a sense, the news board did actually scoop the ed board. It was the news/FM side of the paper that uncovered further evidence of copying - despite the ed board's "investigation." (3) I am most disturbed by Will's characterization of himself as "the final editor of the news page." This is certainly true in other cases, but Will had an irreconcilable conflict-of-interest on this issue; he was, indeed, a named principal in Anton's story. As a news editor following well-established building-wide policy, Will should have recused himself from the handling of this story. May and I had both expressed our opinions on the handling of the matter - and if anyone would like to argue that we should have recused ourselves as well, I might agree. But we at least can plausibly argue that we made our judgments based on the content and relevance of the story-not based on a separate and conflicting interest. The president is above the managing editor in the Crimson's decision-making process, but the president should never place himself above the Crimson's commitment to objective reporting. By overriding our conflict-of-interest policies, Will did just that. Ultimately, we will go back to working together and put this incident behind us. I think that this open airing of views is a positive step in that direction. -Daniel. On 10/28/06, Zachary Moses Seward wrote: > This could be put another way: The Crimson was censored on Thursday night. > That the censor was the Crimson's president only adds a depressing twist to > an already miserable situation. (Will denies censoring anyone and says he > "only decided to hold the story." That's a semantic distinction as hollow as > the blank space on page three of Friday's paper.) > > The irony here is that Will acted in the name of protecting the Crimson's > reputation, and that is precisely the problem. The Crimson earns its > reputation by reporting the news without favor. The ultimate test of that > reputation is when the paper reports on itself. Will accommodations be made, > or will the Crimson be treated just as it treats any other subject of the > news? > > No one would argue that Ilyinski's firing is not newsworthy. The Crimson's > news pages have been vigilant of late in rooting out plagiarism within the > Harvard community. Just yesterday came a stunning piece by Paras on new > allegations against Charles Ogletree. David's Kaavya reporting last spring > has won him national awards. > > So it was only natural for the Crimson to rush to cover accusations of > plagiarism on its own pages. Dan and May defended the Crimson's credibility > by deciding to run the story. Will jettisoned that credibility by pulling > it. > > Will argues that the article on Ilyinksi could not be published in Friday's > paper because it would have appeared to readers as though the news and > editorial boards had acted in concert. Omitting the article from the paper > but publishing it online at 7:45 that morning, he says, was an attempt to > communicate that the two boards acted separately. > > But that's an extraordinarily cryptic form of communication. It's also > dishonest, since the delay between publishing the editors' note and the news > article was, in fact, coordinated -- by Will. And in any event, the most > effective way to communicate to readers is through words, as the news story > demonstrates: "The Ilyinsky case has been handled by Marra and the editorial > board, and the news staff was not included in the decision-making process. > The president and editorial board members did not see this article before > publication." > > Frankly, the reasoning that Will offers for exercising prior restraint on > the news pages doesn't make sense to me, so I'm not sure how to respond to > it. The only relevant question is whether the news and editorial boards > actually acted in concert, which until Will's intervention, they did not. > The decision to fire Ilyinksi was made independent of the news board. (In > fact, the decision was made in part by Will, which should have disqualified > him from having any say in the news board's coverage of the decision. Now > there's a legitimate reputation concern.) This strained attempt to > demonstrate ed and news' independence was public relations, and the > Crimson's p.r. should not guide its news coverage. > > These are just fundamental journalistic values that few, if any, in the > media would dispute. But for a real-world example, look to the Globe's > coverage of its columnist Mike Barnicle, who was fired by the paper for > plagiarism and fabricated reporting. Barnicle was asked to resign on August > 5, 1998. An article appeared the very next day -- and on the front page, of > course. It began: > > > Boston Globe editor Matthew V. Storin yesterday asked for the resignation > of 25-year columnist Mike Barnicle, asserting that his "relationship with > his readers and his employers has become untenable" in the wake of a column > on Sunday containing similarities to a book by comedian George Carlin. > > That's how you cover a controversy at your own paper: by reporting on it > immediately and forthrightly, without concern for how it might make the > paper appear. In other words, by covering yourself like you cover everyone > else. > > But what makes this situation not just upsetting but absurd is the sequence > of events that preceded the closing out of Friday's paper. Ilyinksi was > fired sometime Thursday. Once that happened, how could there remain any > justification for withholding the news story? Then Will granted an interview > about the whole thing to the Globe, officially rendering it a public event. > Still, the news story had to wait? Then the ed board published its editors' > note online. What possible justification for holding the news story could > have remained at that point? And then the Globe published its article, > placing the whole thing in the public record. And yet, there still could be > no mention of it in the news pages of Friday's Crimson. The paper was, in > perhaps a first, willfully scooped. To protect its own credibility? It's > like destroying the village in order to save it. > > Zach. > > On 10/28/06, William Ciro Marra wrote: > > Dear Crimeds, > > > > I'm writing to you all to explain the decision to publish the editor's > > note that appears on the editorial page today: > > http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515308 and the > corresponding > > news article about the decision to discontinue Victoria Ilyinsky's opinion > > column: > http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515328. > > > > We first became aware of similarities between Victoria's column and a > > Slate article soon after the piece was published. After investigating the > > claim and speaking with Victoria, we determined that she did not properly > > cite the source for her quotes from The Great Gatsby and Little Women. > > Given the similar topics of Victoria's column and the Slate piece, we > > decided to print an editors' note this Monday explaining those improper > > citations. > > > > Since we printed that note, more evidence of improper citation has come to > > our attention. We became aware that Victoria did not hear the > > Giants-Eagles sportscaster quote that she mentions herself, but rather > > learned of it from a blog on the word "literally." In light of the extra > > evidence, the paragraph on "Janus words" looked increasingly like it may > > have been borrowed from the Slate article. Given the evidence, Mikey > > Broukhim, Matt Meisel and I decided to retract the piece and discontinue > > Victoria's column. > > > > Lifting material and improper citation are serious offenses, and as you > > write content for any board, you should be certain to properly cite your > > sources. If you have any question about whether something should be cited, > > include it in your piece and ask your editor whether it is necessary to > > cite the source. > > > > Once the decision was made, I notified Dan Hemel that the column would be > > cut. Dan thought it was newsworthy to write an article about the > > discontinuation of the column. I told him that I would not interfere with > > his decision to write an article about the column, though I did ask that > > we withhold it from the print decision and only post it online > > mid-morning. > > > > We should remember that we are a community newspaper. As we've seen in the > > past, many of our readers do not understand the news-editorial divide, and > > we often face a firestorm of criticism that undermines our ability to > > effectively communicate the news. The Isis news article and staff > > editorial of last year contained serious information that could have > > benefited the Harvard community; instead, the message of our content was > > completely ignored in the controversy that followed. Our credibility on > > both the news and ed side was harmed over content where it should have > > been improved. > > > > A serious error occurred in the newspaper last week, and we needed to > > publicly correct it for the entire building's sake. However, if we had run > > the news article in the same print edition as the editorial note, the > > article would have undermined the entire building's ability to correct the > > mistake that had been made. Confusion and anger at the article and note in > > the same edition would have won us, like the Isis stories, nothing more > > than a Pyrrhic victory: printing important content, both news and ed, that > > is otherwise lost in a manufactured controversy. > > > > Second and just as important, the impression that the news board had > > scooped the editorial board, since so many would have read the news > > article first, would have seriously undermined the editorial board's > > announcement, brought into question the intent behind the news article, > > and would have hurt the entire institution of The Harvard Crimson, which > > it is my ultimate duty to protect. > > > > Therefore, as the final editor of the news page, I decided that as news > > editor I would extend the editorial board the courtesy, for the good of > > the building and the news board, of running the announcement first. This > > was not something I had to do, and a news editor could have gone either > > way on this: you could have decided to run the story immediately, or you > > could have allowed the editorial board to most effectively announce the > > decision by running it first. I concluded that my decision benefited all > > three parties the most: > > a) The news board benefited because it would run the story in a > > situation where its credibility was least likely to be undermined, unlike > > what happened during the Isis incident. > > b) The editorial board benefited because it had the ability to > > announce its decision properly, without the impression it had been scooped > > or had collaborated with news to make itself look better > > c) The Harvard Crimson as a whole benefited because the news and ed > > board credibility were not put at risk, and because the institution as a > > whole was able to announce the error in the most constructive manner. > > > > Certainly different editors could come down differently on whether to > > extend editorial that courtesy. My decision as news editor was that both > > the news board's credibility would benefit, and also that the entire > > building would benefit. Even a news editor who was not president, and > > whose explicit task was protecting only his own board and not the entire > > building, could have come down with me, deciding to hold off for the good > > of the building of which he and his board are members. > > > > We must remember that though we are nine separate boards, we make up one > > unitary whole. We have a common mission, and it is my duty to protect that > > mission. > > > > I strongly agreed with the right of the news board to print the story > > about the incident. While holding off for a few hours with the story did > > not at all undermine news' credibility (and among our readers would have > > only increased it), not to have run a story at all would have undermined > > its credibility. Rather than wait for the next print edition, I decided > > the article should be posted online Friday morning, ensuring news could > > get its analysis of the incident out in the most effective manner. A 1,350 > > word article about the incident is now posted online. I did not at all > > censor the news board, but only decided to hold the story for the good of > > the board's credibility and the building's credibility. Some may argue > > that holding it from the print edition was meaningless given it was posted > > online early Friday morning. There is a difference: because the news > > article was posted online several hours after the editorial piece was, it > > would be clear to a reader that the news article was published in response > > to the editorial piece, not in private collaboration. In print, there are > > so such indices. > > > > Many of you have been curious about why the decision was made, and that is > > the reasoning behind it. We were in a difficult situation, and this was by > > no means an easy decision to make, nor was it a clear decision to make. My > > ultimate charge is to protect the institution of The Harvard Crimson, and > > I am confident I made the right choice for the newspaper, for news, and > > for editorial. I would encourage you all to discuss this further with me > > or others, because these are some of the most important questions we have > > to tackle, and there is no clear yes or no answer to them. > > > > Sincerely, > > WCM > > -- Daniel Hemel Managing Editor The Harvard Crimson Newsroom: (617) 576-6565 Cell: [redacted] [redacted]