Bradley suggested I capture and mirror the exchange here, as I had done the day before for our bit of back-and-forth. I didn't think I'd be inclined to do so since it wasn't my debate; but I did chime in at the end, picking up on a point of semantics over the media's usage of the term "steer" for describing the involvement of UNC's academic support staff in counseling student-athletes and the rate at which some wound up enrolled in the so-called "paper classes." Since the issue of "steering" versus "recommending" dovetails into what he (Bethel) and I were chatting about previously regarding student-athlete clustering in these anomalous courses and how to characterize the academic support counselors' or athletic department personnel's degree of responsibility, I thought I'd go ahead and capture the chain of tweets.
So, here it is. If I missed a post or didn't get the sequence right, I'm sure I'll be corrected.
John Drescher: Why The News & Observer is still covering the academic scandal at #UNC. My column. http://bit.ly/1fELzw9
Bradley Bethel: Can you provide a citation to support your claim that UNC admitted academic counselors "steered" athletes to paper classes?
Bethel: Keep in mind the difference between presenting options available to all students and "steering."
Bethel: Also, can you cite any evidence suggesting Nyang'Oro and Crowder didn't create paper classes on their own accord?
Bethel: If you can't cite evidence, can you explain how UNC could have investigated any deeper while those two remained reticent?
Drescher: Martin, Baker Tilly never even looked at Nyang'oro's emails. And BT charged $940,000. http://bit.ly/1fETZDL
Bethel: Has the N&O looked at his emails?
Bethel: The answer, of course, is yes, and you found no evidence of collusion.
Drescher: Emails showed close relationship between Nyang'oro and academic support staff. http://bit.ly/18XOU6m
Drescher: UNC took nearly a year to respond to our request for Nyang'oro's emails. Martin had email access. http://bit.ly/18XOU6m
Bethel: You are dodging the question with non sequiturs. The fact remains no evidence of collusion.
Bethel: Demonstrate the same transparency you demand of UNC: release records showing revenue generated from scandal coverage.
Drescher: Based on all the UNC fans who have told me they've cancelled their subscriptions, we've lost money.
Bethel: Right, you wouldn't actually know the numbers: you are only the executive editor.
Bethel: Regardless of your impetus, much of your reporting on the UNC scandal has been predicated on conjecture and insinuation.
Bethel: You are hurting society by propagating spectacle instead of advancing knowledge and rationality.
Bethel: Last question: Are you going to correct false statement that UNC acknowledged athletes were "steered" into paper classes?
Drescher: Thorp himself said athletes were steered to paper classes, as several athletes have confirmed. This is not in dispute.
Bethel: Citation for Thorp? Two athletes who claimed steering have been discredited; other athletes have countered their claims.
Drescher: Thorp confirmed counselors registered athletes for no-show class. http://bit.ly/1lJ6uhR
Bethel: That is your evidence? You obviously don't know what it means that the counselors "registered" the athletes. [1/2]
Bethel: It means athletes had already selected their classes ahead of time but were in practice during registration window. [2/2]
Drescher: Impeccable source: Bethel says counselors recommended no-show classes. http://bit.ly/1hG4Law
Bethel: A responsible journalist would learn the terms before throwing them around and claiming them as evidence.
Bethel: Exactly. Recommended: presented options. That does not mean coerce, which is what "steering" implies.
Bethel: Again, you mishandle words in ignorance because you are desperate to sell a narrative.
Bethel: I have made my point. You have no argument, and you run an irresponsible newspaper. Goodbye, Mr. Drescher.
Drescher: UNC BOG chair: It's obvious academic advisors encouraged athletes to take the no-show classes. http://bit.ly/1kxBVcm
Bethel: Does that report define "steer," or is it another example of being sloppy with language?
Bethel: My concern is that steering is understood as coercion. No evidence of coercion.
Bethel: If you adopted a less coercive term, like "recommend" or "suggest," I would have no quarrel over this issue.
Bethel: As BOG report stated, nothing suggested the counselors had reason to believe they were wrong for recommending paper classes.
The debate between Bethel and Drescher is over by this point, and I picked up on Bethel's objection over what he feels is an example of media slanting a story through choice of words.
Bethel: "Steered" is an ambiguous term, connoting coercion and easily sensationalized. Journalists should value clarity.
Bob Martin: Coerce is right. Direct, guide, nudge toward, encourage, suggest, recommend. Only ambiguity is degree of influence exercised
Martin: After reading your xchange w/ @john_drescher I see now. "Steer" vs "encourage." Do the semantic shades make a difference?
Bethel: "Steer" implies no choice. Athletes had choice; some chose AFAM, and I believe even on football team less than 50%
Martin: Father steered me toward the Navy, but it was ultimately my choice. I don't read "steer" implying no choice.
Martin: Go to http://bit.ly/1hG4Law and swap "steering" with "recommending." Does meaning, or even tone, change?
Fin. (For now.)