Dear Readers,

The initial Scroll meeting finally concluded, every writer leaving with the concept of an article in mind and five or so minutes to race to study hall. In the Kendall basement, the Scroll XCIX board remained for a process called rundown. It’s chaotic, the air full of the sounds of crinkling wrappers, frantic typing, and shouted newspaper jargon. During rundown, every page editor goes through all the articles that they hope to publish on their page. Sometimes, when an idea seems vague, incomplete, or unsubstantial, the first question I ask is, “What’s the angle?”

All articles, whether they’re in News or Opinion or Buzz—or in the broader world in the politics, business, or climate sections—make an argument. An author of a news article is required not to assert their opinion in words or even by implication, yet she will use the structure of an article, the quotes the author chooses to include or exclude, the specific word choices and even the grammar to assert her argument. The act of writing it in of itself is an opinion: an author or a news article is fundamentally making the claim that a.) the issue they are covering deserves to be covered and b.) that same issue is important enough to be read about by anyone who has the time and resources.

Take this article from my freshman spring, “Deerfield GSA Tackles Issues On and Off Campus.” I never used any first person pronouns, I never used adjectives with inherently positive or negative connotations, and I even included counter perspectives from students and faculty. My article approached the issues of a Gender and Sexuality Alliance rally outside of the dining hall before a sit-down dinner, the possibility of Simmons being a gender neutral dorm, and the state of legislation surrounding transgender healthcare in America from a goldenly objective viewpoint. My article could fairly be classified as news.

However, that does not mean the article has no biases. Take for instance, how I structured the opposing viewpoints in my article. Likely subconsciously, I put the paragraphs containing opinions that I agreed with before the paragraphs containing the counterarguments. Take into consideration the people I chose to interview, the many of whom were directly affiliated with the GSA. When you read this article, notice how I end it with a quote from Former GSA Alliance Leader Will Sussbauer ’23, who said, “We really care, and we are a beautiful community.” Think about who I am—as a person, not a writer—someone who went to the occasional GSA meeting and who later wrote an opinion article about being queer at Deerfield. I wrote my news article hoping the casual reader would walk away with kind, empathetic thoughts towards my community. That was my angle, my argument.

In retrospect, this was a massive conflict of interest, and I should not have written that article. However, conflicts of interest in more professional settings can be much more subtle. Should no queer people be allowed to write about queer issues? I believe a reasonable person would not agree with that claim. If we prohibited every person with even the smallest conflict of interest from writing for the press, every journalist would need to find a new profession.

The devil has always loved to reside in the details, so be careful when examining them. What nomenclature is the author using (example: incarcerated individuals vs. criminals behind bars), and what does the author want to convey through her word choice? Why might an author choose to say, “a decision was made by a member of the Scroll leadership” as opposed to “Anna Guerrini decided?” A skilled writer chooses every word with carefully calculated intention.

Deerfield, I hate to give you more homework than you are already inundated with, but I beg of you, look up the Ad Fontes Interactive Media Bias Chart. Learn which newspapers and online media sources skew left and right. Try to incorporate a healthy balance of both into your regular news consumption. If you ever find yourself consistently reading the work of one particular author, research whether they are involved in any political causes outside of their career or if they regularly donate to campaigns (opensecrets.org is an excellent resource for this).

Writing is at its heart, a human endeavor, and even purely factual articles are full of human emotions, desires, and preferences. Reading is a human endeavor, through which we can interpret information through the lens of our own lived experiences, knowledge and feelings. Acknowledge this humanity, but don’t remove it from the process of journalism. During this election, the finest journalists in our nation will be publishing on the daily, striving to inform the voting and nonvoting masses, hoping that the nation they love will submit their ballot as a well-informed citizen. They are writing for you, the same way I am writing for you. So, above anything else, Deerfield, read.

Yours faithfully in writing,
Anna Jo Guerrini