By Matt Weir

A pressing issue, and one The Daily must address, is the controversial question-and-answer interview printed in Play on Feb. 8, titled “Aiding Africa.” The short interview engaged a conversation about how much responsibility The Daily has to provide balance on the subjects it covers. In the interview, Mera Geis described the year she spent traveling through rural parts of Ghana, providing medical assistance to locals through a non-profit she created.

Two letters to the editor expressed offense at some of Geis’s answers, which they read as dismissive to Ghana, its people and its culture.

Both letters to the editor said that in the interview negative aspects of Ghana were misconstrued, exaggerated or over-emphasized, and because of it the interview perpetuated stereotypes of Ghana and Africa as backward. African Student Association Vice President Karen Attiah’s letter also implicated The Daily as part of the problem. Published on Feb. 15, she wrote, “In the future we urge The Daily to consider that negative stories about African poverty, disease and violence are not the only African stories that exist.”

I agree with Attiah that the contents of the interview are more sensitive because the subject matter is about a country in Africa, a continent the general student populous knows little about, besides the normal news fare of poverty, disease and violence. If this were an interview and Geis gave a comparable view of France, nobody would object. Why? Because the average student here has a cultural understanding that not all experiences in France are like the one Geis, hypothetically, might described. But Ghana is different, and that matters.

The article does not provide a balanced look at Ghana, and so the question becomes this: Should The Daily have published the story as is, or should the interviewer have asked questions to emphasize other aspects of Ghana, or have provided context herself to create a more complete picture of Ghana?

I asked Editor in Chief Ryan Wenzel and Managing Editor Michael Beder about whether The Daily should have printed “Aiding Africa” as is. They both did not regret the decision and were fine with the article as it stands. “I read the interview twice, once before it went into publication, looking over it briefly, and after it came out,” Wenzel said. “I thought the questions were pretty straightforward. And I can see how some of what she said would be offensive to some people, but we typically don’t go into any piece of writing with a slant in mind.”

Beder, who did not see the story prior to publication, added, “The point in talking to her was: You went to Ghana, you worked at this organization, what is your experience? And she told us. I mean, we wouldn’t do a Q&A with Matt Hale (a white supremacist), someone who is going to spew hate speech. And nothing there (in “Aiding Africa”) comes close.”

I agree that Geis’s comments were not out of line, but I disagree with Wenzel and Beder that the article should stand as is. The Daily should have gone to greater lengths to provide context for Geis’s experiences in Ghana because the general reader needs appropriate contextual information about that country. Her experience deserved to be covered in the paper, and I think Play made an appropriate choice in interviewing her. But I do think it is only fair that The Daily realizes that as a community newspaper and a prominent media outlet on campus that it has the power to shape public perception of an otherwise unknown place.

Sources should not be called on to give full context. She was only asked to give her point of view and experience. The newspaper must supply balancing context because it is a newspaper’s role to examine an issue from all sides. Objectivity requires not the absence of bias or skew, but the presence of information that balances all skews. And, by that standard, The Daily failed in “Aiding Africa.”

Public Editor Matt Weir serves as the readers’ representatives. His thoughts and conclusions are his own. He can be reached at [email protected].