Collegiate Times

"The Collegiate Times regrets this error." This is a phrase that, luckily, we haven't had to use too much this year, but unfortunately it's being used in a big way right now. Last week, our staff as a whole made the mistake of publishing a letter to the editor that included personal attacks and large accusations.

The original letter, titled "Nuclear engineering graphic bombs" (CT, Sept. 22), was in response to a graphic from an article titled "Tech receives nuclear grant" (CT, Sept. 15). This well-researched and well-written article on nuclear power was illustrated with a photograph of a nuclear bomb. Unfortunately, this graphic was a bad decision on the part of our staff. Along the way, it has been compared to illustrating a story on smart-grid technology with a picture of an electric chair.

This wasn't where the ball stopped rolling. We then published a letter in response to the initial letter titled "Consider the sources" (CT, Oct. 1). This was by an opponent to the original letter, and this letter was very accusatory.

First off, it is worth noting that the CT staff fact checks all letters and columns that are both published and not published in our paper or in print. In this particular instance, I would say that we lost track of what a quality letter is.

Our mission to be balanced in presenting both sides of an issue was misinterpreted and ultimately not fulfilled by publishing the disgruntled letter. When the content isn't up to our expectations, it shouldn't be published. That's the step that we failed to take this time around.

Now, back to the original article and graphic. The whole piece had initially been scheduled to run the following day, but since a different story fell through, it had to be bumped up. This happens one way or another every day in the CT office, and we adapt to it. Originally the article was going to be a design-heavy centerpiece story with an illustration of a person flicking a switch on a string of atoms that encircled the story that turned on a light bulb. Time is not a luxury we are often granted in the CT office, and we were working on a deadline to create an illustration to accompany the article.

Further, it is important to know that editors and reporters are not the people who make the graphics. Layout designers complete this task, and in this instance there was an unfortunate disconnect between the two.

There was concern from management that the graphic's background of a mushroom cloud did not accurately represent the content of the article, but the concern was overshadowed in the uncertainty when it had to be bumped up.

Three letters were sent and printed in response to the article: the first was from Tech alumni Eric Danner and J. Carrington Dillon, one was from Anne Cockrell, and one was from Shireen Parsons, who was incorrectly called Shireen Pansoms. Cockrell's letter stood by itself, but Parson's was a response to Danner and Dillon's letter. The response included unfounded personal attacks on the two original writers, but it represented an alternative view worth acknowledging.

The Web sites that Parson cited in the letter corresponded to her arguments, but as with any source, its objectivity should be taken with a grain of salt. The Collegiate Times acknowledges that personal attacks on Danner and Dillon should not have run in the paper. We should have asked Parsons to remove these attacks, or we should have removed them ourselves.

This was clearly a lapse in editorial judgment that should not occur again. We, as a paper, never wrote an editorial defending one point of view over the other, thus the paper never took an official stance. We laid out the letters in response and simply tried to maintain our goal of being a forum for community members and students alike to voice their opinions on any topic. These opinions, however, are not to be attacking, libelous, or offending, and our filters were not what they should have been as far as barring against that in this instance.

As stated, the Collegiate Times regrets these errors.