The Consequence of Criticizing The Daily Iowan

An Editorial on The Daily Iowan’s Resistance to Criticism

This article is an editorial follow-up from our president regarding our collaboration with Iowa City Action for Palestine in October. It is not intended to be satirical.

On October 25, we published an article called “Dear Daily: How Do You Get the Blood Off Your Hands?” The article intended to highlight The Daily Iowan’s position on local action against the University of Iowa’s support of American Ordnance, an arms manufacturer that contributes to the genocide in Gaza.

We received no formal response from the DI—only things such as an Instagram DM from DITV that was quickly deleted and some DI writers mentioning their personal opinions on the article to some of our writers in conversation. Most interestingly, however, an Opinions writer at the DI, Samantha Burds, reached out to us. She wanted to write an article that would give her opinion on the DI’s response to the American Ordnance situation at UIowa.

Burds asked if we would contribute to the article, and the writers of our original article, Byron López Ellington and Asher Novakovsky, agreed to be interviewed. She also informed us that she had not yet pitched the article to her editors, so we’d simply have to wait for her to get approval or not before she would be back in touch.

I, personally, did not expect any sort of response to the situation. I had spoken with a few DI writers and DITV members, who I am choosing to keep anonymous, about the subject before and after the article’s publication, and everyone I spoke to agreed with our position. The general consensus seemed to be that many of the writers and reporters at the DI felt similarly—it was simply a handful of editors and producers who felt the need to prioritize the organization’s “non-partisan” position by (inadvertently or not) forcing their personal political biases into the stories, thus downplaying the fact of the matter on the situation in Gaza. Although we weren’t hoping for any sort of formal response, it was still nice to see that at least one writer had the courage to criticize the organization that they worked for.

Four days later, however, we received this email:

Dear Byron and Asher,

I am dismayed to say that I recently had a meeting with my editors at the Daily Iowan, and they have rejected the idea of me writing any article regarding the Doily Allergen article. They said that I am not allowed to write any article in criticism of the Daily Iowan, nor is the Daily Iowan going to do any response to the Doily Allergen.

During the meeting, they called the Doily Allergen article “not real journalism,” and they said they do not have any obligation to respond to criticism. I mentioned the very real issues that the article brought up, and they responded by saying they have had these sorts of crticisms in the past and they do not plan on changing anything. I asked if I could write about any of the issues the article mentioned, and they said no. I was feeling very shaken at this time, so I did not press the issue any further.

Needless to say, I left the meeting feeling very shocked and stressed. I truly believe that the DI is in the wrong regarding this matter. Not only are they refusing to acknowledge the concerns of the many people who have read and shared the article, the people who put work into the article, and the group whose concerns the article is based on; they are actively discouraging staff from talking about the issue. I cannot understand why they refuse to acknowledge the criticisms, and I feel I will never know, as they are not fostering an environment for open discussion.

I am ashamed to be part of an organization that is repressing the truth and discouraging discussion. It is especially shameful that the organization is centered around journalism—a field whose purpose is to give truth and discussion. Furthermore, the issue they refuse to address is of grave stake, involving the lives and deaths of many people. I have made the decision that I will finish the articles I have agreed to write for the DI, then I will resign my position at the organization.

Thank you for being open to an interview with me, even though I can no longer fulfill my own request. I hope that you continue to write articles that address important issues and move your readers to action. Your article has certainly impacted me, and I thank you for that.

Good luck, and thank you again,

-Samantha Burds

I was also quite shaken by this news. Feelings of guilt lingered—some sort of indirect responsibility for someone being driven to resign. I sent condolences to Burds for any distress caused by the situation, and proposed the idea that we would publish the opinion piece on our website if she still wanted to write it.

Burds decided that she would inform the DI of her resignation, maintain cordiality, and share her story with The Doily Allergen after she finished her commitment to the DI.

Almost three weeks later, Burds reached back out to us to inform us that she had officially finished her work at the DI, referencing some “drama” as a response to her resignation. We met with her and discussed the situation. She gave us permission to publish her email as well as an interview with her.

One of our writers, Katelyn Nguyen, spoke further in-depth on the situation with Burds. Here is the full interview:

Nguyen: Your position as an Opinions Columnist at The Daily Iowan should offer strong commentary on various matters around the Iowa City community, including American Ordinance’s affiliation with the university. Following DA’s “Dear Daily” article, you reached out to us for an interview where you would argue for positive change with The Daily Iowan. What was the culture like writing for DI? What were some of the issues you’ve experienced and the changes that needed to be made?

Burds: To this very day, I am still scratching my head, trying to understand what went wrong with my relationship to the Daily Iowan. I know of many people who have had a fantastic experience there, yet my experience was riddled with miscommunications and struggles to be heard. For most of my time as a writer, I was not able to see my articles after edits until they were published. Meaning, the article that was published on the website under my name would often look very different from the article I had written. On some occasions, the article would have errors inserted in, such as a grammar mistake or an incorrect name. It seemed that whenever I brought up my concerns, I was met with resistance. It took weeks until I was actually able to see my articles before publication. As for the editing errors, despite my best efforts to get them fixed, they remain in my articles on the DI’s website to this day.

Despite my best efforts to remain kind and professional, I think that whole editing fiasco caused tensions between my editors and myself. So, personally, the culture at the DI felt hostile for me. I picked up on indications that I was being gossipped about behind my back. Previously, I had overheard editors in the newsroom trash-talking their writers, so I knew it was a thing that happened at the DI, but I never thought that it would happen to me.

When I had proposed the idea of writing an article in response to “Dear Daily,” I was hoping to write a piece that would get a full picture of the issue. I wanted to hear from the writer of the DI article that was criticized, the Doily Allergen writers, and representatives from Iowa City Action for Palestine (ICAP). I hoped to examine the core of the issue and offer advice for journalism institutions everywhere. Unfortunately, I never got that far, as my pitch was rejected.

I think the issue can overall be defined as a resistance to criticism. I think, if the Daily Iowan truly wishes to stick to their policy of accurate “representations of the communities [they] ardently serve”, they need to be open to listening to those communities and addressing their concerns. I believe this applies for both ICAP and the DI’s own staff.

Nguyen: The Daily Iowan is a broad publication where student journalists cover a variety of topics. In its refusal to address The Doily Allergen’s articles about the genocide in Gaza, why do you think DI does not feel obligated to respond to criticism? What does this say as a university newspaper that employs dozens of student journalists working to become media professionals?

Burds: I think the DI wishes to maintain a professional, neutral reputation. That could account for why their coverage of pro-Palestine protests feels unsatisfactory. I think it also accounts for why they wish to avoid writing anything that could paint them in a bad light. Sadly, this desire to maintain their reputation can negatively affect others. If they had addressed the criticisms of the Doily Allergen article, rather than refusing to give them attention, many people could have been properly informed about Iowa’s contribution and complicity to the deaths of many Palestinians. This is an issue of grave stake, and sweeping it under the rug for the sake of keeping face is unethical.

As a model for its employees’ future careers, it should be the DI’s duty to practice and teach ethical standards in the workplace. I don’t believe it should be a standard for reputation to be so highly prized that criticism cannot be addressed.

Nguyen: Can you elaborate on the meeting with your editors at The Daily Iowan when you pitched an article regarding The Doily Allergen’s “Dear Daily” article? Did you experience any hostility in your pitch? How did you feel afterward?

Burds: I had first mentioned the idea for a response article almost immediately after I read the “Dear Daily” article. I was put on hold for the idea, and so I started reaching out to sources while I waited for approval. Of course, I let these sources know that the article idea was not a set plan and that I merely wanted to secure them as a source while hoping to get approval. Later, I received a message from one of my editors saying that I did not have approval for the article. In a meeting a few days later, I was asked if there were any concerns I wanted to bring up, so I mentioned the article idea, asking why it wasn’t approved. My email to the writers of “Dear Daily” details the discourse that followed. During that conversation, I felt very shocked that the DI wasn’t planning on doing any sort of response. I thought that part of the reason why my article pitch was rejected was because someone else was planning a response or that something in my pitch needed to be changed. Instead, I was met with complete rejection. Due to the content of the issue, this left me very shook. It was not long after, I made the decision that I would be quitting the Daily Iowan.

There were definitely some off-vibes during the meeting, but overall, it was kept professional. The most hostility I felt came about a week after that meeting when I received a message from one of my editors where I was referred to as “insubordinate” and was given a strike (the DI has a ‘3 strikes, you’re fired’ policy). I don’t believe that message was directly tied to the pitch, but I do believe the pitch contributed towards the tensions that manifested in that message. Again, I am still scratching my head trying to understand how it all came to that.

Nguyen: Student news has faced growing suppression and censorship. Iowa might as well be added to the growing list of university publications that deny their writers journalistic freedom. Is there anything else you would like to say about The Daily Iowan’s practices?

Burds: I want to say that I think the Daily Iowan does a lot of great work. I still read and enjoy many of their articles. However, I do fear there are unnecessary and burdensome rules that restrict their writers. Many of these rules weren’t written in the handbook, so I had to find them out the hard way. Some of those rules include: you may not use a family or friend as a source, you may not have anonymous sources, you may not interview anyone at the Daily Iowan, you may not include pictures (for Opinions), and of course, you may not write anything that paints the Daily Iowan in a bad light. Many of those rules felt unnecessary or too restrictive for me. I [believe] a loosening or abolition of some of those rules would help writers make the articles they want to write. Specifically, I believe the last rule I listed is a problem. I said this earlier, but I’ll say it now: truth should be prioritized over reputation.

I want to add that I hope the criticisms in this article are taken seriously. My former editors had called the “Dear Daily” article an attack piece, and I don’t want them to view this article as that. I want these criticisms to come off in the most respectful, honest way possible. We are not on opposing sides; we are both trying our best to do what’s right. This article is a plea to hear out our argument for what we believe is right.

We at the DA stand with Samantha. She had both the bravery to share her story un-anonymously and the integrity to maintain her commitment to journalistic truth regarding the DI’s response to criticism by resigning her position as an Opinions writer.

Although the DA makes no commitment to non-partisanship, when deciding how best to share Burds’ story, we wanted to respect her sentiment that she is not out to slander the DI, but simply to provide an anecdotal recounting of her experience with them. We have presented the story exactly how it happened in an attempt to shed some light on the culture within the DI and how they respond to criticism. We encourage our readers to take this information how you will.

D Will
President, The Doily Allergen