The Embittered Feud Between NYU’s Junior Journalists
written by
Anyone who knows me will attest that despite my affiliations with the Washington Square News, and unlike most of my colleagues there, I’ve rarely — if ever — talked smack about its online rival, NYU Local.
“Local,” as people call it, launched in 2008 as the brainchild of two undergrads: film/TV student Cody Brown, and journalism student/fashionista LIly Quateman. Its purpose, ostensibly, was to cover campus news and foster discussion and community among the university’s disconnected student body.
At the time, the fledging project was (and still is, sometimes) controversial, especially as a conversation topic within the bull pen of NYU’s older, “more established” publication: WSN.
“Controversial” might be a little generous, actually, since the newsroom’s response was mainly to mock the idea altogether. In retrospect, it’s funny to realize how dismissive my co-workers were to our up-and-coming competitor when we didn’t even know what it was, yet, really. But I guess when “dismissive” is just a manifestation of “arrogant, fearful, and resistant,” it sort of puts things in perspective.
And when Local finally launched (an event which itself was not without some embarrassing gaffs), WSN’s attitude about the new kid on the block did not improve.
Outwardly, WSN seemed to welcome this new player to the game. But personally, I still felt the paper had been condescending from the outset. In his public statements, Adam Playford (who was WSN’s editor at the time) never seemed to truly acknowledge NYU Local as legitimate competition, and none of the rest of us really saw it that way, either. We just figured this Crazy, Gawker Wannabe, NYU Blog Experiment would never fully gain traction and fail.
Plus, the name was (and, I contend, still is) stupid.
But before you knew it, while WSN struggled with churning out a print edition every day; waning ad sales; staff turnover; and a disasterous website, NYU Local had captured the community and administration’s attention; outpaced WSN’s web traffic; and was publishing a product that was, honestly, informative, smart, and funny.
To recap: WSN (the newspaper) overestimated its clout; while NYU Local (the Internet blog), free of pesky overhead costs and the usual conventions of traditional media, published an entertaining/useful product that attracted a lot of readers very quickly.
Sound familiar?
Of course, the fact that this went down in the same year that the journalism industry at large began to collapse upon itself is just a sweet, delicious, Maraschino cherry of irony on top of all this. (And fodder for another post, I promise.)
Anyway, fast-forward 1½ years, and the rivalry between NYU’s precocious student journalists is still going strong.
The battle lines are a little hazier (troops from both sides follow each other on Twitter and are Facebook friends, for instance, which I guess just means the media industry, no matter what the scale, is always just one big, insular circle-jerk), and some of the players have changed (Adam’s graduated and retired to Florida, and in his stead are Rachel Smith and Mary-Jane Weedman), but the war wages on, just as (if not more) passive-aggressively as ever.
Take, for instance, Jessica Roy’s swipe in a recent post about NYU’s bookstore:
We could pull a WSN and contact our BFF John Beckman for further comment, but he’s probably shopping at American Apparel.
The “let’s make fun of WSN’s self-imposed policy to get the university’s response” meme is, for some reason, pretty popular among NYU Local’s writers and commenters (or maybe just Roy? I don’t really pay attention to their bylines).
Now, believe me, there are plenty of things I’ll openly criticize about WSN (loyalty be damned), but adhering to the principle of “get both sides of the story” isn’t one of them.
Local would be much better off (i.e., sound less juvenile) if it stuck to its habit of pointing out each instance that NYU Local beats WSN to the punch. Because while they’d probably never admit it, I’m sure getting scooped pisses those WSN editors off more than getting called out for, um, trying to be fair?
Then again, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a WSN editor actually acknowledge getting scooped by NYU Local, either. Somehow, they always manage to turn a failure in quick reporting into a tirade about shoddy fact-checking and biased journalism and how they let their writers comment on their own articles, and for some reason that last one is particularly offensive to the tenets of good journalism.
Again, sound familiar?
In another post, NYU Local’s Charlie Eisenhood critiqued a WSN editorial about a student protest in California. Charlie, sadly, can’t help himself, and starts off with:
Set aside the fact that WSN (as usual) failed to attribute credit to NYU Local for breaking the story while adding almost no value to it.
Apparently Charlie forgot what “breaking a story” means, because I doubt NYU Local was the first media outlet to report this story. And by “first,” I mean, you know, first. Anywhere. Ever. Because that’s what “breaking” a story means. And a story that’s attracting national attention (students occupying buildings in a state university, just to give an example) isn’t so exclusive that you get to claim some kind of “breaking” rights to it, anyway. Dig up some juicy court documents or put together an investigative report or something, and then we’ll talk, but if you’re just reporting on an event that’s going to scroll by beneath Soledad O’Brien’s face on the CNN ticker in an hour, get over it.
That said, I don’t really understand why Charlie thinks WSN is obligated to credit NYU Local for anything to begin with. I guess if NYU Local actually broke something, or if it had done its own reporting and had some kind of exclusive that nobody else had caught onto yet, it would make sense (although even then, Media Outlet X would only cite Media Outlet Y to either avoid embarrassing itself if Outlet Y got it wrong, or if Outlet X couldn’t confirm the report on its own).
Now, don’t get me wrong, usually I adore Charlie Eisenhood’s work. I think he’s a brilliant writer, and I was extremely impressed by his reporting when a group of students occupied an NYU building.
Speaking of which, I clearly remember following the coverage that day, and never before was WSN’s ineptitude at covering developing news (or operating a website) more obvious. NYU Local’s coverage, on the other hand, earned some well-deserved accolades from its readers, the community, and the mainstream media, alike.
And yet, my WSN colleagues still refused to admit that they had been out-reported.
Listening to a group of 20-somethings dismiss Internet journalism is pretty hilarious, if you think about it, since those same kids probably grew up with the Internet and you’d expect them to embrace online journalism above anyone.
NYU Local doesn’t have much to worry about. It continues to build a reputation for quick news, humor, and biting commentary. At this point, its writers can probably afford to stop taking pot shots at Local’s geriatric journalistic cousin. (The underdog shtick only has so much life in it before Local’s status elevates it to the position of “obnoxious, schoolyard bully.”)
But WSN has much graver concerns. It never anticipated that its competitor might offer a product that readers found more desirable than its own. But that, at least, could be dealt with, if WSN wanted to. Instead, its editors chose arrogance, to be too stubborn either to realize the paper’s shortcomings or to fix them amidst a changing media landscape.
But hey, I guess that means they really are teaching us journalism. So at least we’re getting our tuition’s worth.
Posted on October 3, 2009 @ 9:45 pm in stream of consciousness | 3,553 views | 17 Comments
[...] was officially fired from the paper yesterday after his treasonous attempts at stimulating a discussion about the relationship between NYU Local and WSN. Though there is no gag rule explicitly outlined [...]
[...] the weekend, your former editor and current contributing writer Sergio Hernandez posted about “The Embittered Feud Between NYU’s Junior Journalists” on his personal blog. The post itself was worth reading, but part of Sergio’s response to the [...]
I sort of stumbled across this post on the series of tubes and thought I’d bring in a question from up north.
Why can’t you kids play nice?
I’m the managing editor of The Massachusetts Daily Collegian, the independent student paper at UMass Amherst, and we had a similar institutional bone to pick for a little while with the new kids on the block, The Amherst Wire when they started up.
Eventually, we realized that it was stupid and petty – and that the grad students still have a paper we can dick on – so why hate on New Media? Now we’re media partners, and share stories and resources. We’re both stronger for it.
Then again, we’re just state school kids, so what do we know?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by . said: [...]
@Jess – Totally, but pistols are so passé. I say journalism student/fashionista Lily should select one of her four-inch heels as her weapon of choice.
Look, I’m not big on the feud either, but how WSN staffers can dismiss the importance of quick reporting by complaining about NYU Local’s “shoddy fact checking” is beyond me. Sure, we make mistakes (and admit to them), but in a recent WSN article on the Iranian protests (http://nyunews.com/news/2009/sep/23/protest/), the writers extensively quote a student who supports and raises funds for the People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran, but they fail to mention the PMOI is recognized as a terrorist group by the US. Are they so technophobic that they can’t google their sources?
That last line came out a little more aggressive than I meant it to (I’m studying statistics on a Saturday night – urgh). All I am saying is WSN does sometimes make the mistakes for which it chastises Local.
Sergio, this is a great post. I’ll note, briefly, that you’re right about your “breaking the story” point. I used the phrase more in the sense of bringing it to NYU’s attention and providing commentary. WSN then largely copied our idea.
However, if we want to talk about shoddy fact checking, just read the rest of my post that you critiqued one line from. Has WSN published a correction?
I have no clue. Even I barely read WSN much these days (and my involvement as a writer is mainly a contributed piece here and there).
That said, unless things have changed, I think the editorial board is given some pretty generous leeway in what it writes, and I’m not sure how much oversight Rachel and Mary-Jane actually assert over it.
But for what it’s worth, I did read the rest of your post, and I thought it was, as usual, well thought out and well articulated.
[...] thought it was random but also very true. Then this was sent to me, and it all made [...]
I should clarify a couple of points here, just in the interest of full disclosure/clarity:
- I actually hadn’t seen Mary-Jane’s tweet when I wrote this, so if that was prompted by something in particular, it a) has nothing to do with this, and b) is a coincidence.
- I don’t claim to speak authoritatively about what WSN’s current attitude towards NYU Local is, because I’m simply not in the office frequently enough to know.
A lot of my observations are reflective on when NYU Local launched and the following couple of semesters, so it’s possible that the rivalry has eased, somewhat.
And I would hope that is the case, because maybe when the two groups acknowledge their shifting positions, they’ll be able to adapt better. WSN can’t take its clout for granted anymore, needs to stop being so defensive, and learn to use the Internet.
And while NYU Local is certainly “safer” from the perils of print journalism (although one might argue that college newspapers are, mostly, pretty insulated from all that), it should at least be aware that putting down the competition is far less endearing when you’ve become the top dog. Now, I’m not saying they should stop calling WSN out on its shortcomings altogether, because there are plenty, and they should be pointed out. Just point out the right ones. Not crediting the blog that scooped you isn’t one of them, in my book, and I never quite bought it when “mainstream” blogs made the same complaint of “mainstream” newspapers.
Gotcha. I agree with you on most points. And re: the crediting thing, I think that’s a fundamental difference between the way print journalists think and the way online journalists think. WSN’s website is simply another medium to display their print product. For NYU Local, our website IS our product. I think WSN runs the risk of seriously alienating the tech savvy masses if they don’t learn that a website is not just another way to display print content; online and print content are, and should be, totally different. Both mediums have their pros and cons, but when content gets put on the internet, it should be adjusted to coincide with the internet’s journalistic ground rules. Clearly we’re coming at this from different angles, though.
Actually, I agree with you completely there.
Expecting credit is only an issue for me because, like you said, it’s an online thing. And WSN’s online presence is, really, merely a formality. Which is the problem.
I’ve long held that WSN needs to beef up its Internet presence, both to supplement and enhance its coverage, and for the benefit of students who use WSN as a training ground. Newspaper experience is good and all, but that alone won’t help anyone get a job in this industry once they graduate.
Part of the problem, I guess, is the print edition. Without sufficient content, it would be redundant to publish articles on the website as they’re filed; the next day’s paper would have no new, substantive content and it’d be a waste of time and money to produce and publish.
That delay is sort of a double-edged sword.
On one hand, it absolves WSN of owing some kind of credit or attribution: “Why would we credit NYU Local for scooping us? We were able to confirm and report this story ourselves, and took it further with our own reporting. They may have done it first, but we can do it ourselves and we can do it better.”
And that would be fine, except they frequently don’t do it much, if at all, better.
But if you’re going to sacrifice timeliness, then you’d sure as hell better have some worthwhile incentive to lure readers with.
If and when WSN’s online coverage is up to speed and they’re still not crediting you when something breaks, by all means, go after them. But right now, they’re completely different beasts. One of which, I agree, is risking a slow, quiet death if it doesn’t wise up.
Admittedly swipes about WSN are indefinitely ‘peppered’ throughout NYU Local, but a joke about John Beckman being a hipster quoted as one of said swipes…? LOL.
Nobody thinks WSN’s commitment to ethics, original reporting or sourcing is laughable. But we sometimes think John Beckman is.
It’s strange because I thought the tension was much, much better this year. Aside from our writers feeling like, to some extent, we do deserve to be linked on the WSN site when we scoop them, I’ve sensed little resentment or existence of a ‘rivalry.’ And for future reference: any John Beckman-related joke should not be taken as an insult to WSN.
Maryjane’s tweet today was very true: “Tension between @nyulocal and @nyunews bums me out. If anything competition has helped both our publications.”
Whether or not she actually believes that, I don’t know– from what you’re saying in this piece, what goes on in private with WSN is a lot different (and potentially more vitriolic) than I ever thought. But I, for one, totally agree with her sentiment here.
Anyway, the real question that emerges from all of this is… can this ‘rivalry’ be handled like the good old 1800s, Burr-Hamilton style?
because i’m home sick and bored tonight, i have to re-respond to b)
you may be right about that particular story, but it was following on the heels of 4 nyu-specific stories that we actually did, without a doubt, break days before WSN in September. apparently confused about the ways of the internet, there was no linking to Local from WSN. you’ll recall that we used to do a WSN roundup and still do link to stories that you guys have and we don’t. it’s common journalistic courtesy. more than that though, wsn prides itself on attempting to be professional. omitting sources kind of isn’t.
I actually happened to notice several of the stories that NYU Local did, indeed, break before WSN, so I don’t begrudge you that at all. (And, to be honest, I shook my head in disapproval at WSN’s sloth-like pace in getting to those stories)
And I agree that WSN is not savvy to the “ways of the Internet.” The problem is that WSN operates in a strictly print-minded fashion; they don’t think, plan, or write for the web, and they treat their online presence as merely a virtual format of the print edition, not an extension of it. There’s a lot of untapped potential there that they don’t take advantage of, and it’s an aspect of NYU’s coverage that you guys seized upon and mastered.
I guess where we disagree is the idea this idea of crediting Local as a source. There’s a difference between using a competing outlet as a “source” and simply getting scooped and having to play catch-up. “Professional” news outlets don’t necessarily publicize when they get scooped, either. Why would they? It’s embarrassing. I’d be more inclined to agree if WSN had a better Internet presence, because then it’d be fair to expect them to play by the Internet’s rules, but they don’t, so it’s a moot point. (Although, the bigger problem, of course, is that they should.)
If your writers want to call WSN out for refusing to embrace the Internet as a way to enhance its coverage and stubbornly clinging to the Old Customs Of A Dying Medium, by all means, that’s a story worth writing. But the passive-aggressive remarks sprinkled here and there just make you guys sound, depending on how you look at it, either:
1.) whiny and petulant, like the new kid nobody wants to play with and won’t get let into the clubhouse, or
2.) smug and self-assured because everybody already knows you’ve established yourselves as a bonafide competitor, but for some reason still feel the need to brag about it
a) lovely graphic up top.
b) when charlie wrote that WSN didn’t attribute the story we broke, he was referring to the fact that we’d made literally the exact same TBNYU connection three or so days earlier. Local didn’t break the story about the Cali protest, but we were, as far as I know, the first ones to compare it to TBNYU last spring. It looks a little funny for WSN to make the same conjecture days later and act like it’s original/they don’t read Local. We all know they do…
c) i’m pretty scrappy and cody’s got those long limbs, so i think we could take rachel and maryjane.
a.) Ha, thank you.
b.) All due respect to you guys, it’s not like drawing a comparison between a group of students who occupied a building at UC Santa Cruz and a group of students who occupied a
buildingcafeteria at NYU is a particularly sophisticated act of logical contortion.That said, I’ll admit I’m making Charlie something of a straw man on that point, since of course he and the rest of you know what “breaking a story” really means. I simply meant to illustrate the frequent references (put-downs? teases?) to WSN.
Both publications like to make jabs at each other, which is fine, really, except you both do it over totally the wrong things, and unlike WSN, you guys do it publicly.
Which, again, is perfectly fine, and it’s WSN’s prerogative if they want to try and be gracious publicly and something else privately, but that also gives them enough control of the situation to make your guys’ remarks reflect poorly on yourselves, and — except for when your meta commentary on WSN is dead-on — you guys play right into it.
Personally, I think the feud can be quite entertaining, but eventually it’s going to reach a point where it’s just tired and played-out, and people are going to start asking, “What, exactly, are you trying to prove at this point?”
c.) I think I’d rather watch you guys kick Adam’s ass (for the purposes of my own entertainment), but Cody & Lily vs. Rachel and MJ would be a pretty good spectacle, too. ;)