As the editor of the science section, I am ultimately responsible for the material that is published in this space. When there are numerous complaints about articles or commentary, it also my responsibility to respond to the issues brought up by readers.
I included an article on Scientology in the Science Section last Thursday because of increasing efforts by Scientologists to share their beliefs with students on campus. Because our reading audience is comprised mostly of students, I felt it would be an interesting piece investigate the question, "What is so scientific about Scientology?"
In a few words, Scientology is based on the claims of L. Ron Hubbard and what he called Dianetics - a methodology that believes physical and mental pain can be alleviated by the sufferer alone. There has been intense backlash to dianetics and Scientology because it essentially discounts the efforts of standard therapists.
Because I feel it is important to investigate the various forces acting in favor or opposed to accepted forms of science, this is one reason I felt it pertinent to publish the article in the science section. By investigating the dynamics of the science world, I feel it is easier to more fully understand, overall, what goes on in our society.
The writer turned the piece in several days before it was to run and, after some discussion, I and other editors thought it was an interesting piece but we felt it lacked objectivity. To try to balance the article and gain additional expert opinion, we tried calling professors within Ohio State's College of Humanities but we were not successful in our attempts.
The letters we received following the publication of this article highlighted the same issue we had brought up in the newsroom: The story lacked objectivity. But the newsroom is a busy and dynamic place, and mistakes are often made.
At this point I would like to bring up a few points regarding The Lantern and our writers. First and foremost, The Lantern is produced by the students and for the students - we have paid editor positions, but writers and copy editors are unpaid contributors to our paper.
This is because in the journalism curriculum at OSU, writing and copyediting for The Lantern is part of the required course work. Indeed, most students pay tuition to have the opportunity to gain journalistic experience. To put it simply, we are a newspaper produced by a student laboratory; we are all here to grow and learn as journalists and every one of us makes mistakes, including editors.
Although we received some praise for covering different belief systems, the fact remains that the article lacked full objectivity and was unbalanced. Though I am not retracting the article, as I feel it contains some information students would like to know about, I would like to use my limited space to apologize for my impatience. Instead of waiting for sources to return calls, I ran the article as it was submitted to me.
Of all the sayings and clever quips displayed in the newsroom, my personal favorite is this one: "Lawyers hang their mistakes. Doctors bury theirs. Journalists put theirs on the front page." At some point, all journalists make mistakes - these mistakes can be as small as typos or inaccurate headlines to bigger mistakes such as prematurely running stories to fill a news hole.
Dave Mosher is a senior in journalism and biology. He may be reached for comment at mosher.46@osu.edu.
