The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
In my capacity as a reporter for The Princeton Tory, I covered the recent Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) aligned referendum that came before the student body for a vote. Eric Periman ‘24, President of the Princeton Committee on Palestine (PCP), authored the referendum which demanded that the University halt all business with the Caterpillar Construction company because it contracts with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).
On April 13, leaked data from Princeton’s Undergraduate Student Government (USG) revealed the voting results. As a student journalist dedicated to providing timely and factual coverage, I immediately published a piece before any other campus publication. My news article explained that the referendum “failed to win a majority of student support” and provided the leaked voting results: 44% in favor, 40% opposed, and 16% abstaining.
Immediately, questions began to circulate as to the role abstentions would play in the calculation of the results. Some believed they counted toward votes cast–because of word from the Chief Elections Manager–which would mean failure of the referendum, and others disagreed, believing only “in favor” votes were considered votes cast. (see here for a fuller explanation of the referendum process: https://www.theprincetontory.com/bds-aligned-referendum-halted-by-princeton-students-rejected-by-administration-news-recap/)
On April 18, The Daily Princetonian (The Prince) published a News piece that misrepresented my piece and The Tory. The Prince article asserted that “The Tory article”–referring to my piece–“claimed the referendum had failed to pass,” but my piece made no such claim. I simply wrote that the referendum “failed to win a majority of student support,” which it did; it won only 44% of the student body’s vote.
The Prince article also included Israel War Room’s featured image and headline, which claimed that BDS was defeated at Princeton. The inclusion of the image made it appear as though it was The Tory—and not an outside publication—that put out coverage stating “BDS Defeated at Princeton,” which is blatantly false. No publication can control what outside actors do with their coverage. To present misinformation published by the Israel War Room and attribute it to The Tory is confusing at best and deliberate misinterpretation at worst.
For the sake of journalistic integrity, I urged the Prince to issue a correction regarding its false representation of my article and to put the Israel War Room image in its proper context.
Since the Prince was covering what it believed to be false representations of the referendum, I assumed that its editors would be interested to know that the PCP falsely claimed victory after the voting numbers were leaked.
The Prince responded to my request for correction by brushing off my concerns about the Israel War Room image and PCP’s false claim of victory. “I don’t think that warrants a correction” is all I got by way of a response from a Managing Editor. No explanation. No offers of dialogue.
The Prince did attempt to issue one correction, but it was just as inaccurate as the original. The updated piece contended that “The Tory article originally claimed the referendum was ‘reject[ed].’”
The Tory never argued that the referendum was rejected. Rather, it explained that “Princeton Students rejected” the referendum, as evidenced by the lack of majority support: less than 44% of students supported it. My piece by no means made a claim as to the results of the referendum itself but instead laid out the statistics as a representation of student attitudes.
After an exhausting back and forth, the Prince took down the rejection claim and published what it should have published in the first place: the truth. The new piece reads as follows: “an April 13 Princeton Tory article that reported 40 percent of votes had opposed the referendum and 16 percent had been abstentions.”
At that point, I thought that the matter was closed, but I could not have been more wrong. Not a week later, the Prince published yet another article with false claims. What’s more egregious is they were the same claims that had been corrected just days before.
The new Prince article asserted that The Tory “put out” “disinformation…which either outwardly declared victory or intentionally misreported the results of the referendum in order to build the narrative that it failed.” So I again penned a complaint to the ‘Prince,’ thereby instigating yet another exhausting process. I informed the paper’s editors that not only was the assertion patently false, and the Prince had retracted this exact claim from a previous article.
The interaction gave me pause; beforehand, I held at least a small hope that journalistic standards had not fallen from grace. Now I realize that the Prince has no issue with publishing pieces without rigorous fact-checking so long as they appear under the guise of “opinion”; so, the next time you read a Prince opinion piece, keep in mind that its claims about conservatives–or any groups it dislikes, for that matter–were likely not subject to strict scrutiny.
The Daily Princetonian’s Editor-in-Chief, Marie-Rose Sheinerman ‘23, informed me that the relevant editors would review my request and respond accordingly. Over a week went by in silence. Only after I followed up did I receive a response, and a highly unsatisfactory one at that. I received a sparse two sentences from a Managing Editor letting me know that the Prince had “reviewed” the article in question and “determined it was accurate as published,” therefore “no change will be made.” There was no discussion of the review process or any response to my contestation.
“We reviewed the column with your feedback in mind and determined it was accurate as published. No change will be made.”
I was taken aback. How profoundly has college journalism degenerated? I suppose it makes sense. University seminars and faculty lounges were the nurseries wherein ‘Wokeism’ was conceived and incubated. What starts with Prince journalists–and their sister college counterparts–and as the academic exercises students are challenged with by activist professors then infiltrates the Mckinseys and Bains of the world, not to mention national media, entertainment production, and management of major corporations as these students move on to positions of authority and influence.
But that does not excuse the Prince’s lack of journalistic integrity, its degradation of conservatives, and its nonresponse to journalists questioning the truth of its coverage. We cannot stand for this deliberate attempt to deride The Tory and any other voices with whom it disagrees. That only serves to chill discourse and to intimidate rather than invite participation. The fractures in our campus community only grow wider and deeper with each assault. As a Princetonian and a journalist, I refuse to accept this as reasonable, fair, or in the spirit of a true liberal and free society. And neither should you.
(Photo courtesy of Alpha Stock Images)
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.