Nahikian Analyzes Press Cf erage Of Student Boycott
Marie Nahikian. former
associate editor of The
Carolinian, wrote the following
analysis of the Greensboro
commercial press coverage of
the recent Slater cafeteria
workers strike and subsequent
student boycott in support of
the workers.
The Press, in its
responsibility of reporting the
facts to the public, is
constantly faced with the
question of truth. The question
becomes more complex when
the reality of truth is
juxtaposed to the question of
human emotions and public
opinion. Ultimately, the Press
becomes involved with degrees
of truth.
There are general ethical
problems concerned with the
Press as a whole—should the
Press follow or lead public
opinion—should the facets of
mass media be true tc
themselves or to the public
they serve? Generally, any
newspaper would be quick to
say that these questions are
determined by public opinion.
But does that constitute truth?
This is all overshadowed by the
fact that mass media is almost
totally responsible for the
greater part of what society
belives.
four days before the strike
occurred, the GREENSBORO
DAILY NEWS carried a short
story which stated factually
that talks were going on
between workers and
management. The story said
little and was almost an
incidental comment. On
Monday evening, the
GREENSBORO RECORD
printed an article that, although
longer and somewhat more
explicit, essentially stated that
talks were going on. One
paragraph, however, was more
than just incidental news. It
stated that "the school has
expressed some interest in their
welfare (sic, the workers) by
appointing the Chancellor's Ad
Hoc Committee on University
Racial Policies." The next two
paragraphs point out how the
committee has done little
except "looked into the
cafeteria workers' situation only
as they are a part of the total
employment picture on the
campus..." Two factors are
important here: both stories
quote only the management, no
mention is made of the position
of the workers except through
the interpretation of the
management; and secondly, in
relation to the slant of
subsequent news coverage, it is
All of these questions mirror
a more complex problem: the
moral ethics of an individual as
part of the mass media business
of communication. Ultimately,
the moral ethics of the
individual dictate the moral
ethics as they exist for the
Press.
On the whole, when asked,
an individual outside the realm
of the Press, or the recipient of
the Press, will say that he
accepts what is printed by a
publicly-accepted newspaper,
television or radio station. The
distrust and disillusionment
doesn't seem to come until the
individual is responsible for
something the public will read
as truth. It is here that he is
faced with the ethical morality
of the situation.
In an attempt to examine
this question realistically, an
analysis of an actual situation
will serve most profitably. What
does a reporter, as an individual
and yet part of the mass media
complex, write when faced with
a potentially explosive strike of
university campus at a time
when violence and student
unrest is widespread?
For the purposes of analysis,
the reporting of two local
newspapers, a morning and
evening edition, will be
considered as one. Essentially,
as the two papers are under the
same ownership, the news
coverage was done in the same
manner and with the same
justification.
On Sunday morning, a full
significant that the stories were
printed at a time when the
strike had not yet occurred.
At this point, it would
appear that press coverage was
being little more than
objectively factual. Ethics and
truth on the basic level had not
yet entered the picture, unless a
far-ranging interpretation was
made of the potential of the
situation. It would appear that
no such interpretation was
made and therefore the
newspaper could remain
essentially ethical to themselves
and to their' public.
No further mention was
made of the strike until it
actually occurred on the
following Thursday. That
evening the paper reported that
the workers were on strike.
Reports of number and
demands were basically factual.
However, for the first time, the
aspect of student involvement
was mentioned. The story
noted that a member of the
Neo-Black Society said "that
while the sympathies of the
organization are with the
strikers, the exact form of the
expression . . . will take has not
yet been decided." It was
further stated that one student
leader (identified only as not
being a member of the
Neo-Black Society) said, "It's
too early to tell what the
general student attitude will be.
I don't think most of the
students are really aware of
what's going on yet."
With this report, however,
much of the attempt was to
play down the student
involvement in the strike, a new
aspect came into play. Here, it
seems the newspaper begins to
toy with the ethical aspect of
the situation. No commitment
needs to be made yet, however,
because sticking strictly to the
facts allows public opinion to
determine the morality of the
situation. That is, the
newspaper, as a spokesman for
and to the public, has not been
threatened.
Friday morning brought
news coverage that could no
longer avoid speaking of the
student involvement in the
strike due to the official
position taken by a Student
Government Association
resolution "pledging support
and resources to he striking
workers." The DAILY NEWS
coverage was careful to avoid
any mention of how the
students felt about the
situation. The coverage also
purposefully distorted figures,
saying that only 250 students
had attended the Thursday
night rally, while in fact there
were over 700 students at that
initial meeting.
Later coverage in the
afternoon edition of the
GREENSBORO RECORD
carried the headline "Student
Strike Support Swells." Ibis
particular story was almost a
surprise after the obvious
play-down of facts in the earlier
story. Buried in a continuation
of the article was the statement
"Student sympathy at this stage
is generally on the side of the
strikers." Yet, prior to this
sentence was the following
statement: So far there have
been no incidents of violence in
connection with the food
boycott, and an extended,
probably quiet, seige seemed in
the offing."
It is obvious at this point
that both stories appearing on
Friday have made a value
judgement. In essence the moral
commitment has been decided.
The question had been
essentially whether it was best
to inform the public that a
university campus in their
community could in fact
explode at any moment or to
play down the events. What is
the morally ethical thing to
do . . . report truth as truth or
color it for the sake of the
supposed "well-being" of the
public? Is it not possible to
print fact and truth and let the
public decide its own
well-being?
By Saturday morning this
decision was even more obvious
with the DAILY NEWS story
bearing the headline "Cafeteria
Operation 'Normal' at UNC-G."
With the number of students
obviously involved, it appears
almost an absurdity for the lead
paragraph to have stated that
food service . . . "proceeded on
a normal basis" according to a
university spokesman. What
would have been the evaluation
according to a student?
Two other issues become
involved at this point: the
official position taken by the
Faculty Council which met in
an emergency session; and
comment on the situation
concerning Hope Harbor (Home
for Alcoholics) workers in the
cafeteria who were in sympathy
with the strike but were not
allowed by the Home's director
to strike. Although the
newspaper found it necessary to
report the facts involved in the
situation, the lack of
investigation and analysis seems
inconsistent. This is true
especially jn terms of the Hope
Harber situation where male
residents were clearly
intimidated into non-expression
of their opinions.
The Hope Harbor situation
was more clearly delineated in
RECORD coverage on Saturday
afternoon. Although the paper
printed a statement from the
Director, the Rev. John
Stephenson which said "I told
our people if they joined the
strike, they could remain here
at the Center, but if they went
over to the University they
would have to go to work. All
of them said they absolutely
would not participate in the
strike," the lack of statement
either from the workers or
from any other individuals who
received conflicting statements
from Rev. Stephenson is
obvious. Had the newspaper
been willing to present the
situation ethically, these
statements would have been
necessary.
At this point in the news
coverage, several things have
consistently been stated. One
factor is the constant
reiteration of the
administration's intent to keep
"law and order." The following
statement is typical from the
DAILY NEWS Saturday
coverage. Chancellor Ferguson
said "it should be clear that the
University will abide by and
cooperate in the enforcement
of the laws of North Carolina."
There has been little mention
of the students' intent or
non-intent to remain within
lawful means. Another factor
was the reporting of facts on
the situation "according to
ARA Slater representatives."
For obvious reasons, the Press
has been careful not to talk
with students and certainly not
to print what they said. There
seems to have been a moral
judgment that what the
students had to say could not
be trusted. This points up
clearly to the ethical decision
that the Press seems to have
made in regards to coverage of
the situation.
Sunday passes and the strike
went on. In fact, emotions and
frustration rose to a new level
with no mention by the Press.
One short article was printed
on Monday morning to the
effect that the strike still
remained unsettled. In those
four short paragraphs, two
significant statements were
made. The first reported on a
negotiating session held on
Sunday night. It said that at
the end of the session another
meeting was scheduled for
Monday. The enlightening fact
was that Sunday's negotiations
were the first obvious breach of
good faith on the part of ARA
Slater. They, in fact, refused to
negotiate saying that since the
workers now had legal council,
they must also secure the
services of a lawyer. The article
did not point out that the chief
negotiator for Slater had left
town on Saturday night and,
regardless of the lawyer
situation, they had no
intentions of negotiating on
Sunday. Another statement
made in that Monday morning
story was that "Food service in
the UNC-G cafeteria has been
maintained without disorder
since the strike began." This
statement is blatantly untrue.
To even the casual observer it
was obvious that the UNC-G
cafeteria was far from running
smoothly. Dining hall floors
were filthy, a garbage was piled
up in the tray sections
downstairs, students were
emotional (even those against
the strike), and the entire
campus had a restless air about
it. There was absolutely no
mention of approximately 150
students that had marched to
the Chancellor's home on
Sunday afternoon, which was
the most outspoken
demonstration of students'
feelings that had occurred.
Press sentiment and ethical
concern became blatantly
obvious with coverage on
Tuesday. Monday might have
seen the climax of emotions
and the greatest potential for
violence than at any other time
during the strike. About 1200
students had joined a march
and rally at the administration
building, and yet the
GREENSBORO DAILY NEWS
chose to state "Several hundred
persons—mainly students from
the University of North
Carolina at Greensboro and A
& T State University—marched
through the UNC-G campus
Monday night in support of
striking cafeteria workers."
Other than the number
distortion once again, it was
untrue that the students were
mostly from UNC-G and A &
T. It was true that most of the
students were from UNC-G.
A vital factor in the same
news story was the lead
paragraph which denied that
(according to the Chancellor)
Chancellor Ferguson had agreed
to a campus meeting on that
morning. Whether the
Chancellor denied knowledge of
the meeting on or not, what
kind of ethical judgement went
into the decision to make that
fact public, especially
considering that the Press had
been present after the rally was
moved back to the student
union and the high emotional
level was obvious. For a Press
that had evidently decided that
a moral way to conduct
co 'erage of the situation was to
play down what was actually
happening to decide to print
such a statement is amazing. It
is almost impossible to
rationalize and justify in
relation to the slant of other
news coverage.
The GREENSBORO
RECORD printed reports of the
Convocation that did occur on
Tuesday morning when
Chancellor Ferguson met with
the student body. The story
printed clearly stated that
"reckless statements" made at a
rally on Monday night were
made by some ominous
"outside influence." The story
quoted Chancellor Ferguson as
saying, "I don't believe that
responsibility (real or assumed)
to see that negotiations were
carried out. This point was
reinforced by a quote from the
Faye
la
He
the
nme
<f
to
statements urging action outside
the law) was made by a UNC-G
student." The story added,
"... whereupon the audience
applauded loudly."
If truth and not slanted facts
were to be printed, the story
should have gone on to speak
of the direct and sometimes
difficult-to-answer questions
that came from the students
addressed to Chancellor
Ferguson. It would have also
pointed out the number of
students (which I am sure was a
first for this particular campus)
who refused to stand for an
ovation for Chancellor
Ferguson.
The same story quoted on a
white student, familiar with the
situation, as telling a newsman,
"The strike has become a racial
issue because there has been a
great deal of pressure on black
students here to show their
color and this is the only
opportunity they've had to do
it." This quote, which
interestingly does not point out
which student made the
statement, was an actual
misconstruing of words.
With Wednesday, press
coverage brought out an
additional factor that had been
largely ignored until the strike
was almost settled. Along with
statements about the over-all
encouraging progress of the
negotiations, was printed the
statement that Consolidated
University President William
Friday arrived on the UNC-G
campus because "These
negotiations are of concern to
me because of their impact on
ig that today the
listration (of the
ity) has a desire to see
the negotiations resolved."
That the press made the
decision that it was not
necessary to mention the
responsibility until they decided
to assume it, is an obvious
reinforcement of their original
ethical decision. It was never
mentioned that the students
had been talking with
administrators since the strike
began urging them to see that
negotiations were earried out in
good faith; that in fact the
administration was the only
party that could insure that
factor. It was also largely
ignored that the correlation
between student demonstration
of sympathy was largely for
this reason and that the basis
for the intensity of emotions of
Monday night was due to the
University's unwillingness to
demonstrate concern on the
part of due process.
Thursday's coverage brought
the news that the strike was
settled late Wednesday
afternoon. The DAILY NEWS
story was nothing more than a
statement of facts and exactly
what demands were won by the
workers. The strike was over,
everything was peaceful and
every one was happy. Once
again the newspaper could
return to a statement of truth
because there was ethical
commitment involved.
The RECORD on Thursday
afternoon printed an analysis
which called the events a
"polite strike." This in itself
epitomizes the ethical decision
the Press made in covering the
strike as they did. There was
nothing polite about the strike.
A further statement in
regards to student involvement
indicated that restraint on the
student's part was surprising.
But in the same vein of the
previous statement, the Press
did not acknowledge why the
students became involved and
why there was no violence.
They chose instead to point out
that extenuating circumstances
existed that should have added
to the tension such as "the
students at UNC-G are not used
to protest and would therefore
have been elected to get excited
and that there was a full moon
at the height of the tension."
Such statements as these give
emphasis to the moral judgment
that students were not to be
considered a valid part of *he
judgment.
The Press made no further
mention of the strike. It is
significant that there was never
any editorial comment in either
paper concerning the strike.
Judging from usual editorial
comments on local situations, it
would seem probable that some
mention would have been
made. This seems to
demonstrate the moral decision
the Press made in concerning
the incident . . . no mention
editorially gives weight to the
play-down the event got.
It is evident that in this
situation the Press made the
decision that they would lead
public opinion. The Press
determined the truth and
printed it. It is, however,
unrealistic to assume that the
truth printed was the reality of
the situation. This is pointed up
more clearly by the fact that
the Press was present
throughout the strike and had
ample opportunity to talk with
all persons concerned.
There are many reasons for
the specific treatment of the
situation. It is significant that
whatever was printed, the
newspaper would probably
receive criticism. The decision
to play-down events seems to
lead one to assume that the
Press presented the strike so
that the criticism would come
from the source with the least
political power and the source
least likely to have the
sympathy of the public.
Ultir
ately,
ethic
entered the picture the decision
was not made in terms of all
parties concerned, but in terms
of the very individual interests
of the newspaper's public
image. It would be impossible
to see this as an ethical
presentation of truth.
