A Newspaper's Responsibility

No newspaper that has any responsibility to its readers can tolerate anyone's telling its reporters which stories they may write and which they may not. That is why the CRIMSON yesterday abandoned its three year policy of having only Radcliffe girls cover Radcliffe events and assigned a male reporter to the post of Radcliffe Bureau Chief.

Radcliffe officials will doubtless deny that they seek to control stories about Radcliffe that appear in the CRIMSON, but the action they have just taken against Miss Labenow has exactly that effect. They have charged that she committed "bad journalism" in writing a story; they felt it was their responsibility to take disciplinary action against her. Though Radcliffe officials say they don't mean it that way, this one case is enough to suggest that the Annex takes responsibility for all news stories written by Radcliffe girls.

But it is obvious that responsibility for what runs in the CRIMSON must be the CRIMSON's. A newspaper-and no one else-is responsible for the news it prints. Otherwise a paper is crippled in presenting a true and complete picture of the community it covers.

But Radcliffe, by suggesting that "bad journalism" can result in disciplinary action, is making a threat that could easily persuade a reporter not to touch certain stories that might displease the administration.

For what is "bad journalism?" Even if one were to grant that a student should be punished for "bad journalism," it would be impossible ever to define it. If, as Dean Small suggested, "bad journalism" includes stories "not in the best interests of Radcliffe College," then the CRIMSON would end up printing only handouts that could not possibly harm the College's good name.

That is why the CRIMSON-and not Radcliffe College-must continue to answer for all stories which appear in its news columns. That is why the CRIMSON has replaced Miss Labenow with a male Radcliffe Bureau Chief who can aim at giving CRIMSON readers a complete picture of Radcliffe without being subject to any future disciplinary action for "bad journalism."

Radcliffe may say that a similar situation will never arise again and that any restrictions now imposed on CRIMSON reporters by this week's action are insignificant. This is neither true nor relevant.

When freedom is lost gradually-through petty actions, in little dribbles-the result is just as disastrous to the health of society as when freedom is lost in one sudden capitulation.