Great Moments in Student Journalism

Take it easy.

No, don't take it easy. This is exactly the kind of thing that academic institutions (Covenant, Lee, Southern Adventist, T Temple) need to be told. Their claim to the "academic" part is much diluted by their infusions of doctrine into study.

I'm a Southern grad, so I can talk.

I'm not sure why you seem to have such a chip on your shoulder. It seems to me that you look for any chance you can find to point out the faults of Covenant College.

I don't mind you being constructively critical when you disagree with something they do, but to "attack" them in such a public forum seems inappropriate. Too many people who have no previous experience with Covenant have no reference point in which to interpret your comments.

I can find many things about the college that I could complain about too (and I sometimes do in a more private setting), but I do believe that as an institution they are honestly attempting to find ways to engage their students in culture. It seems that the practicality of doing that is nearly impossible.

I would like to hear some of your practical suggestions for ways they could do a better job.

Josiah, there's more to 'culture' than Hollywood and their fascination with alternate sexualities. Just because this journalist may not seem like an expert on the most recent gossip/obsession chronicled in People, Us Weekly, and other such magazines doesn't mean he knows nothing about culture. Even though Jai, Kyan, and the other Fab 5 want you to believe otherwise (and even though everyone in New York and Hollywood spend tons of money to convince you otherwise), homosexuality, unbridled liberty, and the 'have it your way' mentality is not the pinnacle of culture.

Give the student journalist a break and don't jump to your typical conclusion that 'it's all Covenant's fault.' It's not. You're wrong. It's not contract's fault, either.

Dude, you didn't tell me your blog site was a public forum. I thought it was a place for you to talk about whatever the hell you wanted. Oh shit! Is there a moderator?

The "scholarly" contributions that these institutions make are in the realm of theology. Those are the types of journals their academics get published in, and that generally defines academia to those that care to define it. Those contributions should be subject to the highest scrutiny in an open environment, because they are intended to be a contribution to scholarly knowledge.
They aren't pretending to be experts in the other stuff, they're allowing students to explore it, practice it, and be critiqued in a closed environment. I have heard you support this idea in regards to student development practices).
I don't see how it can possibly help these insitutions to tell them that they aren't academic experts in everything they do. They never said they were.

I think what bothers many Covenant grads is that this forum is continually used to criticize the college. This is a kid who wrote an article and then we jump on the college because of Josiah's experiences when he was there. People read this and think Covenant is no different in what they teach than Tn Temple.

davidm,

Of course Josiah is free to talk about whatever he wants on this blog. That obviously wasn't the point.

My point is that these kinds of discussions should take place, but when done in this type of setting are sometimes more destructive than constructive. If Josiah's intent is to be destructive then this is where he should bring up his greivances. If his intent is to be constructive than I believe that these discussions are more appropriate within the Covenant community.

Josiah, I can see your point about the review (perhaps). We all make research slip-ups from time to time, though. I don't know hardly anything about Truman Capote. Anyway, it's those who describe themselves as homosexuals are the ones who make gender identity into such a big deal. I would prefer to leave such discussion out of the review entirely, unless it's relevant to either the message of the film or the other actions of the individual being portrayed on screen (yes, I do believe you can separate public and private life to a certain extent - that's why the Monica Lewinsky trial irritated me). From what you say about homosexual attraction being implied between Capote and one of the killers, it sounds like it should have been discussed in the review - perhaps even more than it was. But I don't think the failure of one reviewer can be attributed to a failure on the part of Covenant College. I know dozens of people at the college who are extremely culturally literate, and I've never encountered backwoods obscurantism among the professors.

I would argue that this article is, in fact, unrepresentative of the Arts reviews in the Bagpipe, most of which are written by the Howards (or were, anyway) and not only deal with the indie culture that you love but do so with class.

I agree that Covenant's core arts program could be improved. But the core is already stinkin' huge - much larger than most colleges. Compared to the English system (which I'm experiencing here at Oxford right now), Covenant gives its students a much broader range of knowledge, as well as an intellectual framework (creation-fall-redemption) in which to put that knowledge in context. So by all means, let's get better at what we're doing. Let's fulfill our Schaefferian call to culture, and all that. But that happens not by rejecting what Covenant does well - the teaching of a Christian worldview that goes beyond mere buzzword-level - but by encouraging students to apply on their own what they're being taught in class. The college can't do everything for them. If students at Covenant are too lazy to interact with culture beyond playing Halo and watching the O.C., that's their own fault.

The irony of your critique is this: however poor the resulting analysis, going to a movie and seeking to understand it on its own terms is the very essence of “engaging in culture.” Of course, it would have been ideal for this student to do some research on Capote himself before offering up his understanding of the man, but not doing that research – and doing a shoddy movie review – does not equal “not engaging culture.” Perhaps you’ve too quickly imputed the ineptness of the current Bagpipe staff to the college itself, and confused not doing something well with not being inspired to do it at all. Perhaps the problem isn’t with academic standards, but admissions standards.

Further, you’re missing an important distinction between skills and content. My studies at Covenant, covering everything from Nietzsche with Partain, Belgium’s rape of the Congo with Green, the biblical creation account v. pagan myths with MacDougall and issues related to gender, social norms, and identity with Davis, gave me the skills to engage culture, though they may not have directly exposed me to it. For the most part, don’t you think providing a skill set, rather than teaching cultural content, is the real job of an educational institution? (if not, then instead of learning a way to engage culture – which at Covenant is a Christian way – these kids should be learning about it – that Truman Capote was gay, etc.) I’m currently studying law at a major research university, and there is no stark difference in the degree to which I’m “engaging culture” here than I was at Covenant. The stark difference is in the cultural (including philosophical, social, political, religious, etc.) diversity of the faculty and students. If you think that this diversity is crucial in training students to properly engage culture (which may be true, and which would potentially be a very good argument against Christian colleges in general), then I think you’ve found your problem.

I love the way Josiah writes. I wouldn't want him any other way.

And I disagree with the claim that a place like Covenant's primary academic intervention is (or should be) in the realm of theology. Theology is part, not all, of liberal arts, and it tends to make the college a seminary if we act as if that's its number one contribution.

But I want to say: at least the kid is trying to interface into society, as superficial as it may be. This is coming from a low-level instructor at a large public university, where the general apathy within the student body toward cultural critique, from whatever perspective, is rampant. The general lack of concern coupled with an unwillingess to THINK constantly depresses me. At least Covenant gestures toward that, even if it doesn't always deliver.

Which is not to say we should accept weak attempts. I'm just happy when I see _any_ attempt.

Hey, I've had my fair share of Covenant criticism, but I've learned that it's too easy. Anyone can criticize, but without an offering of constructive reasoning that provides a redemption solution, is simply a sign of argumentative laziness... i.e. complaining.

I enjoy Josiah challenging the Covenant in how to become better, but just pointing out the bad spots isn't productive.

But hey, it's his blog right davidm? But his blog isn't something directed toward himself. He's writing to an audience and a blog such as this expects response.

Paul, I agree with you. You probably have a better viewpoint on this than anyone since you're a university teacher.
My point in speaking of "academic contribution" was a response to joe public's broad use of the word "academic". I'm just saying that the level of critique should vary with the purpose of the work in question. The piece of work that Josiah brought up did not seem intended for "scholarly" critique.

Please keep your comments to a few lines max. My attention span isn't big enough to read the long ones.

Josiah, stop putting the New Yorker side by side with the Bagpipe. Its a stinkin college paper and no worse or better than any of the other college papers out there. Try reading some other universty papers and you'll think the bpipe is pulitzer worthy, especially Washington U in st. louis, there's is awful.

Though I haven't seen capote i agree. he was gay.

"Great Moments in Phileo"

Josiah, please do not go back and read anything I wrote before I turned 20 (or 30 for that matter).

It's one thing to take a kid aside and talk to them about a slip or even an uninformed comment, but the public ripping seems to go a bit far. I know you have a spine of steel and that "back in your day" you could have taken it, but loosen up okay?

On another point, using this “critique” to then mock the college mission statement seems beneath you. Again, loosen up.

OOOH you just got served josiah!

Congrats Holtie on sucessfully baiting me into breaking my silence. I have no idea why I would let someone who considers "The Notebook" one of the top 10 films of 2005 do so, but mebbe its just 'cause I love you so much.

Dave, public critique of the article can (and I'd argue should) occur on the same grounds in which you can leave a critical (not in the negative sense, or heck negative, I don't care) comment here.

Further, my comments (which make reference to Capote's widely known sexuality) were not implicitly or explicitly moral in tone (unlike others left here). My point is that were this a moral issue (which I think is a grey area, which is neither here nor there) I could understand why one might keep it quiet, but since it is a professional & public (newspaper article) consideration, I don't see a compelling reason to do so.

Finally, "Beneath" me Dave? C'mon, you know me better than that. Regardless, were I actually mocking the motto itself you might have a point, but I wasn't and I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote.

Its a wonderful motto, I have it tatooed on my right shoulder immediately underneath W.C.F. (which most people assume means I'm a big wrestling fan). Humor aside: without the assumption of the goodness and rightness of the motto the entire sarcastic endeavor of the blog falls flat.

Well, I wasn't trying to bait you nor "serve" you (in the urban not Christian sense). Perhaps it would be better to have been accused of actually serving you.

What I was commenting on was more your recent pattern of calling out student "journalists" and how this was dove tailing into your existing pattern of critiquing the school.

Critiquing inconsistencies of college policy or challenging them to excellence is fine, but I felt that you were using the foibles of a youth to further that cause and that since they’re easy prey this pattern may become a trend.

Whatever the case may be, again I would just encourage hesitation before "whipp'n on the youngn's."

If you’d like, we can go to Standard Ink together and get all kinds of things tattooed on us to remind us of what we’re supposed to do or that we’re often apt to play the fool.

Take care.

OOOOh I got served!

So basically anything that crosses your path is defined as "public" and is subject to your own "non-moralistic" content-only analysis?
"Public" is relative. Ideally, things become public when the original author sends them out to an intended crowd. You might be a part of that crowd, and you can critique all you want within it.
But when you critique it and send it out of that first crowd, _you_ are the one making it and your analysis "public" to someone else - some other crowd. Don't act like you're just an innocent "commenting" bystander in a stream of information - you're taking something out of it's original context and intent and subjecting it to your own rules within your own crowd.

No Mello, not everything that "cross my path" is public. In terms of the public nature of the article in question, you can view it in a very public location here.

But you seem to be saying, if I'm understanding you correctly, that since a portion of the readers of my blog are not readers of the Bagpipe (or its general community), that its wrong to critique that article on any grounds or standards (i.e. "my own" or "my crowd's") except those grounds/standards/assumptions of the Author's general audience (i.e. Covenant College & the broader Covenant Community).

This is a fascinating position, and don't get me wrong, I'm no objectivity monger (at all, in fact), but why isn't that assertion on your part simply you trying to get me to play by your rules? What if I don't like them? Am I a jerk (by your standards)? We can run the Foucalt power-game in circles for days.

Nevermind the obvious diversity of standards/assumptions/rules expressed on this blog in this thread alone. But maybe you're implying that that's the distinction between the Bagpipe's audience and my own: they don't have diversity and I do? That seems a bit unfair.

And isn't this position a bit condescending (and patronizing) to the Bagpipe/Covenant audience? "Don't pick on them, they're just their own little community. On a mountain." I prefer to put my loves and grievences right out there in the open.

Oh, and Dave, good points all. I'll take them to heart. No need to worry 'bout trends, short attention span and all that.

Yes you do, and you do it so well.

I never said you shouldn't pick on the college community because they are too weak to stand up to it. I believe that if you held Covenant College up to any other Christian college or university they could easily hold their own and better.

I guess Tennessee Temple does a better job of engaging culture because they are located in the heart of the city.

If Covenant College's biggest problem is that it is located on the mountain then...

what were we talking about?

I'll limit my input on this matter (and the resultant hubbub) to this: If you can't run your own genitalia, you have very little hope of running anything else.

So I'm remembering the days we were both at Covenant when I said to (and about) you that sometimes I couldn't say your name just once: I had to say it 3 times in a row, shaking my head all the while. Josiah, Josiah, Josiah. I do miss you! If it's any consolation, the school I'm at now is where the motto, "freedom within a framework of faith," has been satirized in a recent student newspaper editorial. Bemoaning an imposed-from-above-though-not-as-'above'-as-God change in the athletic logo design, the writer suggested our motto be "freedom within a framework of mascots." When you see a donation from me to the Terrablogs account, it means I'll be back down there soon to collect on the hug allotment. And perhaps a beverage if they play Led Zeppelin at Hoppy's.

I don't think it's condescending to subject different content to different levels of critique based on authorial and academic intent. That's what my first comment to joe public was about.
I don't expect you to play by anyone else's rules unless you want to. I'm just asking you to acknowledge that you are breaking other people's rules when you put content and analysis in front of an audience for which it was not intended.
And I don't think you're a jerk, but I do think you're being a bully - by my rules. If that doesn't mean that much to you, you should ask your crowd what they think.

Okay, why not?

Yes, it is pretty ignorant to treat an essential fact about the main character of a film as if it has no bearing on the story. Yes, such a thing is entirely worthy of ridicule. Furthermore, Josiah did not mention the name of whoever it was who flubbed this one, so any personal critique is entirely hypothetical. The author knows who he is, but no one else does without doing some checking.

But it's a freaking college newspaper. It is, in essence, space for proto-adults to clumsily test out their public communication skills. I'm certainly not eager for anyone to read what I wrote there, and I'm not really in favor of making it publicly available either. There were certain issues put out after the estimable Mr. Mesh departed his editorship that I was embarrassed to be associated with. But that's okay. Everyone has to try that kind of thing out somewhere, and the sandbox-that-is-college is the perfect place for it.

I say, take down the webpage, or make it only accessible through student logins. It's a bad thing that potential employers can read what 18-20 year olds write about anything. I'd not want it held against me, and I don't see why it should be able to be held against anyone else.

I have no regrets about my Bagpipe articles. Then again, they were all about exciting things like chapel roof repairs.

ryan, if the question is directed towards me, I'd answer it with your third paragraph. A college newspaper should be treated differently by critics than a submission to an academic journal or an art project by a third grader. Different authorial and academic intents. Some things are meant to be contributions to scholarly knowledge, and some things are just exercises.
Should I walk down to the gym and tell the guys shooting around that they're not as good as Steve Nash? No, I mock Stephon Marbury instead. He's on the same "playing field", and should be mocked. The guys at the gym are just living life, and have never said that they want to be held to Steve Nash's standard.
Of course, I can break those rules and critique the guys at the gym if I want. It's just that I then have to realize that they will kick my ass.

If the question was not directed towards me, then disregard this.

It's true that student journalism should be judged by a far more lenient standard than that which we use for more advanced efforts. However, this error was egregious even by such a generous measure: a cursory read of Capote's Wikipedia entry would not only have yielded his sultry publicity photograph for Other Voices, Other Rooms, but also this sentence:

"Capote, openly gay in a time when it was common among artists but rarely talked about, was as well known for his high-pitched, lisping voice, outrageous manner of dress, and wild fabrications about acquaintances and events as he was for his literary output."

However, Josiah's critique was not primarily directed toward the student's work; what he intended to highlight was the insular, anchoritic nature of an institution of which he believed the article to be symptomatic. That proposition can and should be debated; the first step towards doing so is to end the bizarre scrapping about the propriety of his newspaper review methods.

That's fine if that's the issue you care about.

The title of this original post was "Great Moments in Student Journalism."

Writing for The Bagpipe, or any school newspaper, is (among other things) a chance for a STUDENT to learn how to be a JOURNALIST. And learning how to be a journalist includes getting called out for things like this. I don't care what school you go to, Christian or secular.

I think it's safe to say that taking the time to research your subject enough to write accurately about him or her (even if your subject is gay) matters little in terms of your salvation.
And I think your professors will understand.

Wow, I leave for a bit and this place start to look like we've been discussing Litt1e Genev@.

Bill makes some good points and if the goal is truly to help prepare good journalists... then so be it. We need many.

For me, the subject matter was never a concern, but rather the potential of exploiting the naiveté of a student for vanity.

The whole reviewing movies through the glasses of scripture gets kind of silly here. The dude's whole 'tude is 'even if he is playing a gay guy he's doing a good job'. As a Christian critic, Christ has changed my life and the way I think, therefore I don't need to say what I think about homosexuality, just that Hoffman does an incredible freakin' job of every character he ever portrays no matter what the morals of that charater be. The few reviews I've read of the bagpipe have always addressed the morality of the characters. I feel like they should just talk about the movie. It ventures in to littlegeneva territory of saying the movie must be worthless art because the cowboys are gay. Also, I'm drinking and don't have enough patience to read all the comments so forgive my poor structure and any redundance I've committed.

Julian, as per usual, you're right on the money, in particular about the focus of the post.

And Dave, I can assure you that the sucesses and failures of student journalists have little to do with my egregious self valuation.

The Brokeback Mountain review was sympathetic to the homosexual aspects of the film. In fact the article named it the "best film" in years.

Concerning the Capote review, I think the objections are valid. However, the point being made was not that Capote's homosexuality was ambiguous, but that Capote's sexual orientation should not affect the viewers response to the story. Though it was an awkwardly stated point, I think the message is a refreshing one coming from an evangelical point of view.

Also, I'm the Covenant Arts editor. Littlegeneva can kiss my puerto rican ass (25% hells yes).

"However, the point being made was not that Capote's homosexuality was ambiguous, but that Capote's sexual orientation should not affect the viewers response to the story"

No, the point made WAS that it was ambiguous AND that it had no bearing on the rest of the story.

“….. they did not know him for what he really was. This could also imply he is merely an effeminate, straight man. Whatever Truman Capote’s sexual preference (which has no bearing on the story)”

Knowing Capote’s sexual orientation WAS the point of the story. The directors specifically chose to tell the story of In Cold Blood through the lens of his homosexual feelings for Smith and his conflict with vanity.

Though Josiah’s focus of the post was not particularly on the student, what is wrong with criticism? Why can’t it make him a better writer?

I recollect Truman saying something to the tune of, "all my life people have wanted to label me, but nobody really knows who I am or what I'm really about". To label Capote a homosexual-writer driven by "homosexual feelings" is not the purpose of the film and to view Capote's In Cold Blood project with that narrow sort of lense is not the intent of the director. You may deduce that "homosexual feelings" and "conflict with vanity" are the main themes--but do it gently friend.

Give the man some room.

Ari wrote, "Knowing Capote’s sexual orientation WAS the point of the story. The directors specifically chose to tell the story of In Cold Blood through the lens of his homosexual feelings for Smith and his conflict with vanity."

I didn't get that from the movie. I saw Capote's exploitation and betrayal of Smith which served Capote's narcissism as driving the story and the relationships. When the killers were hung, my sense was I supposed to realize that Capote's act of betrayal as equivalent to their cold blooded killing.

That being said, Capote was gay, and the filmmakers include this because it is important to all that happens. If he did fall in love with Smith, then it makes his exploitation of Smith all the more inexcusable and tragic. But the gayness of Capote was not central to my reading of the story, any more than an equivalent story about a heterosexual would've required that I interpreted his heterosexuality as central.

Yeah, scott you're right. the exploitation and betrayal of smith was tragic and central...and similar to the killer's murders…done in cold blood. I guess i just don't want to write off the fact that the conflict of his being obsessed (and possibly even more conflicted with his homosexual feelings...after all, in the movie his best friend did ask him if he was in love with perry....) is central to his deterioration (dying young, alone, alcoholic, and without writing another book).

Q: How would you describe the relationship between Truman and Perry? It seemed that Truman was attracted to him in some way.

PHILIP: The problem is you want to compartmentalize your life. You want to be able to say ‘that’ doesn’t have to do with ‘that’. That was the problem, that he couldn’t separate the two. He couldn’t separate his obsession and attraction and need after Perry Smith, from the actual project. It was inseparable and therefore fed into the ultimate demise. He couldn’t have one without the other. He couldn’t say, “I love you, I am obsessed with you, I’m fascinated with you, I want the best for you…could you be executed?” (laughs). Is that possible? That sounds so silly but you know ultimately that was the dilemma, a no-win situation. Ultimately at the end of the day, he was going to be abandoned once again, left once again. I know that sounds as self-centered as possible but that’s ultimately the grief he is feeling at the end, is the self-reflection that is crushing him. He can’t be left alone again.

http://www.cinecon.com/news.php?id=0510032

I agree with Hoffman's reading of his character entirely. My point is simply that it is Capote's sexual orientation that the movie is about. Rather, it is his affection for Smith, and more interestingly, his ability to see the human in Smith (which no one else could see) that redeems Smith. But then, his own need to be adored causes him to betray his new friend. That was the tragedy of Capote that I could see, and it's a tragedy (I'm on a soapbox now) that is universal to all people, and not just homosexuals. We destroy the people we love so often at service of our own idols. But I don't see Capote's idol as his erotic love for other men, but more damaging than that, his craving for publicity, both large and small. It is that that utterly makes him a monster not his gayness.

That should read, "My point is simply that it is *not* Capote's sexual orientation that the movie is about." Sorry - I never reread anything before hitting publish (something which always gets me in trouble when turning in projects and papers).

I am a (realistically) proud Covenant alum, I live in Washington DC where there are almost as many gays as straights, I know next to nothing about Capote because I was a history major, and I grew up on Krupski loop, one of the most culturally-engaged places on the planet. So if nothing else in your mind changes, don't include that on your list! (All in good fun, of course.)

So your problem with the article is that the student didn't know Capote was openly gay or that the student didn't think Capote's homosexuality was relevant to the story?

Determining from the article alone the student's own knowledge regarding Capote's sexual orientation is difficult, since the student does not offer more than the film's presentation of Capote (which was vague). Perhaps if the writer had felt Capote's homosexuality played more of an important role in the themes developed, the writer would have been more explicit regarding Capote's gayness.

That said, I wouldn't have gone so far as to say that Capote's homosexuality had no bearing on the story whatsoever. Obviously one's life and work are going to be affected by something like that. However, I don't think homosexuality was the main point, either. My mom (whose opinion in cinema I value greatly) found it ironic that Capote was in effect writing a story that would eventually become his own verdict: In Cold Blood. The parallels between the killer's life and his own slowly unfolded until we find Capote ruthlessly sacrificing his "friend" for the sake of his book. Some of the extenuating circumstances may have differed (such as the fact that the killer dispatched an innoncent family while Capote only refused to acquit a guilty murderer), but psychologically (in terms of how the audience feels about it), the lives of the killer and the writer were the same.