On page 1 of today’s issue, The Daily Campus reports the Sept. 4 indictment of SMU student Donald Samuel Cuba by a Dallas County grand jury. The story dates back to the early morning hours of Feb. 10, 2012, when Cuba allegedly sexually assaulted another SMU student in her on-campus residence hall room.
While the real account of what transpired that night remains to be told and adjudicated in forthcoming legal proceedings, the story of how this indictment was first reported last Friday in Fort Worth’s alternative weekly – The FW Weekly – is one, we feel, merits open discussion.
As reported by The Fort Worth Weekly Friday, the SMU student – after being found guilty and then innocent by two separate SMU judicial review panels – was taken to court by his victim. He was indicted by a grand jury in Dallas County for rape on Sept. 4.
The Fort Worth Weekly continues that the rape occurred on the SMU campus and that both the victim and the accused are SMU students. The question becomes: Why did a story centered around SMU run in the Fort Worth Weekly instead of running in The Daily Campus?
The answer is a complex one, but it revolves around three issues: outside pressures, privilege and ethics on sources and editor-writer relationships.
When The Daily Campus or any other newspaper decides to report on a story, it is critical that editors and writers are on the same page. When the team of writers – in this instance, one current student and two former students – approached the editorial staff about running the piece last Wednesday, The Daily Campus reached an agreement with the writers. The Daily Campus would have first right of refusal on the piece. The Daily Campus editors also requested that the writers work with the editors in a collaborative way. The next day, the writers presented a final draft. After reading the final draft, The Daily Campus editors wanted to push back publication of the story to Sunday (online) due to a couple of concerns. We wanted to carefully vet the story before publication – a common expectation in the journalism industry.
However, the next day, the editors learned the writers were “shopping” the story around to multiple publications, including The Dallas Observer and Fort Worth Weekly. Red flags were raised when a reporter at The Dallas Observer learned about confidential talks the paper had with writers on the sensitive story.
Even more worrisome was the unwillingness of the writers to reveal confidential sources to The DC editor-in-chief. The Daily Campus never intended to reveal confidential sources in print.
Instead, we faced backlash from writers when we requested the names of the confidential sources. It is pertinent that editors know the identity of sources for multiple reasons.
Firstly, editors can verify the authority and veracity of sources used.
Secondly, editors can look for other sources that are willing to go public with the same information.
Thirdly, editors must ensure that the credibility of the paper is protected when using confidential sources. If sources are later discredited, the paper suffers. It is the exception and not the rule when writers refuse to reveal confidential sources to editors.
Perhaps most importantly, The Daily Campus found that no matter how important the story, it could not cross an important ethical line. As a student newspaper, it is an unstated rule that the paper only serves as a platform for student writers. Two writers on the piece, who are currently employed at the Texas Lawbook, are not current students. But, shockingly, one of the graduated writers called the mother of the alleged rapist falsely identifying himself as a Daily Campus reporter.
The paper also received a tip that another writer on the team had approached SMU organizations as a Daily Campus reporter. If The Daily Campus were to publish the story, it would undermine everything it has stood for and continues to stand for: ethical and responsible journalism.
The bottom line is the writers came to us with a story and wanted it to get published as soon as possible. We wanted to make sure the story was sound. The writers chose not to address our questions, but instead sought other outlets for publication without telling us their intentions. That’s their prerogative.
This board’s contention is that The Daily Campus acted in a responsible and consistent manner when deciding what to do with the story.
The Dallas Observer, which originally criticized our editors for failing to publishing the story for political reasons, wrote the paper an email that said, “The story was initially presented to us as the Daily Campus essentially killing a controversial story for essentially political reasons. After considering the facts and speaking with you guys, it became clear that this wasn’t the case and that the editors were simply doing what editors are supposed to do: carefully vetting a story before publication… [I] feel the DC editors made the correct decision under difficult circumstances and should be applauded for doing so.”
An independent journalist made the conclusion above. And, it is important to note The Daily Campus is not forgetting – or hiding – the story.