04-01-2024, 04:01 PM
I didn't love this article, and I've spent some time wrestling with how much of that is some misplaced defensiveness on the part of my alma mater vs. actual, factual issues with its coverage and analysis. I won't pretend to be neutral here but will try to be reasonable in my criticisms.
I do give Theo Baker credit for what seems to be thorough and accurate reporting. We know from his reporting on MTL that he is an impressive and accomplished young journalist (helped, though not diminished, by being the child of two very accomplished journalists). I believe strongly that investigative journalism plays a vital role in society, and I am confident that he will go on to do important things.
I confess, though, to some frustration with his fixation on Stanford. I get it—that's his corner of the world, and it helps to report on what you know. But lately, it feels like after landing a book deal based on his MTL reporting, he is looking for his next big scandal and letting the cart drive the horse. In an October article for New York magazine, he worked hard to tie SBF (who was raised by Stanford professors but did not attend Stanford) to the University and to paint campus as a "fraud cluster," largely by repeating other people's observations about Elizabeth Homes and reaching to not only create parallels but to really implicate the school.
Now, he has secured another high profile byline by using Stanford campus as a lens through which to comment on the Israel-Hamas conflict and the polarized nature of campus culture in the U.S. As other commenters have observed, this is hardly unique to Palo Alto, but Baker tries hard to convince us that Stanford is uniquely worthy of discussion and analysis. He certainly seems to have done his homework here. I believe that he conducted the extensive interviews that he says he did, that he reported quotes faithfully, and that he represented the scenes he described as they happened.
I will note, however, that on a porous campus where outsiders often come to protest in White Plaza and where newsworthy incidents sometimes involve non-students, Baker seems either unable to verify or uninterested in verifying whether some of the more incendiary interactions he reports actually involve members of the Stanford community. Sure, it's fair to assume that a critical mass of participants in these protests/events are students, but he's not reporting quotes that represent the vast majority (i.e. pulled from a petition signed by a bunch of stanford.edu email addresses). He's going for shock value, quoting profanities and death threats in an article that invokes Stanford starting with its very title. And while his opening anecdote identifies by name a Stanford student saying some very troubling things, such attribution is noticeably absent or vague throughout the rest of the piece.
Second, while my anecdotal experience doesn't at all negate Baker's observations and reporting, I will add here that as a Palo Alto resident who spends significant time on Stanford's campus, I have not experienced it as a war zone. Of course I saw the tents. I walked past them multiple times a week on my way from the Tresidder parking lot to the Coupa Cafe outside of Green Library. While there have no doubt been flare-ups, I observed students sitting in their respective encampments, scrolling on phones, occasionally trying to engage passers-by, but being respectful when those people (myself included) chose not to engage with them. Like I said, Baker's reports of conflict are surely also accurate—both can be true! But he has written an article that, to me, painted campus as constantly warlike, which I found borderline misleading in its omissions.
Speaking of omissions, standard journalistic practice is for a writer to disclose at the earliest possible opportunity any personal affiliation that might either impact their reporting or create the perception of impacting their reporting. Theo Baker's Jewish identity surely falls into this category. He does address it—but waits until 75% of the way through the article, which feels irresponsible (though some fault lies with the editors who didn't more that paragraph higher in the story).
Finally, if I could ask Baker anything, it would be what he hoped to accomplish with this story. Perhaps the response is that, as a journalist, his job is to simply tell the truth of what he sees and experiences. That his job is simply to report out. That he is not in charge of what happens next. Of course, the result of his investigation into MTL is a case study in journalistic impact. He can't be insensible to it, but there is an argument to be made that he's not responsible for it.
That said, at the college level in particular (where resources are more scarce and there are a finite number of directions one can shine journalism's spotlight), it feels worth interrogating what the point of it all might be. And I'd argue that one point could be to make a place and an institution better. I don't believe this article does that. When Stanford—and particularly Stanford students—have been in the national spotlight these past few years, the scrutiny and trolling from the outside world always seem to amp up tensions in ways that make it impossible to resolve conflict. Last year, when student protestors and an administrator at the law school clashed with a federal judge, students were doxxed and harassed online. Trucks drove around campus toting screens that displayed their name, pictures, and contact information. It made those involved feel more unsafe and more entrenched. In short, it made everything worse. While Theo Baker's article bemoans the state of Stanford campus, he had to know what the result would be. At this point, it's hard for me not to see him as part of the problem.
I do give Theo Baker credit for what seems to be thorough and accurate reporting. We know from his reporting on MTL that he is an impressive and accomplished young journalist (helped, though not diminished, by being the child of two very accomplished journalists). I believe strongly that investigative journalism plays a vital role in society, and I am confident that he will go on to do important things.
I confess, though, to some frustration with his fixation on Stanford. I get it—that's his corner of the world, and it helps to report on what you know. But lately, it feels like after landing a book deal based on his MTL reporting, he is looking for his next big scandal and letting the cart drive the horse. In an October article for New York magazine, he worked hard to tie SBF (who was raised by Stanford professors but did not attend Stanford) to the University and to paint campus as a "fraud cluster," largely by repeating other people's observations about Elizabeth Homes and reaching to not only create parallels but to really implicate the school.
Now, he has secured another high profile byline by using Stanford campus as a lens through which to comment on the Israel-Hamas conflict and the polarized nature of campus culture in the U.S. As other commenters have observed, this is hardly unique to Palo Alto, but Baker tries hard to convince us that Stanford is uniquely worthy of discussion and analysis. He certainly seems to have done his homework here. I believe that he conducted the extensive interviews that he says he did, that he reported quotes faithfully, and that he represented the scenes he described as they happened.
I will note, however, that on a porous campus where outsiders often come to protest in White Plaza and where newsworthy incidents sometimes involve non-students, Baker seems either unable to verify or uninterested in verifying whether some of the more incendiary interactions he reports actually involve members of the Stanford community. Sure, it's fair to assume that a critical mass of participants in these protests/events are students, but he's not reporting quotes that represent the vast majority (i.e. pulled from a petition signed by a bunch of stanford.edu email addresses). He's going for shock value, quoting profanities and death threats in an article that invokes Stanford starting with its very title. And while his opening anecdote identifies by name a Stanford student saying some very troubling things, such attribution is noticeably absent or vague throughout the rest of the piece.
Second, while my anecdotal experience doesn't at all negate Baker's observations and reporting, I will add here that as a Palo Alto resident who spends significant time on Stanford's campus, I have not experienced it as a war zone. Of course I saw the tents. I walked past them multiple times a week on my way from the Tresidder parking lot to the Coupa Cafe outside of Green Library. While there have no doubt been flare-ups, I observed students sitting in their respective encampments, scrolling on phones, occasionally trying to engage passers-by, but being respectful when those people (myself included) chose not to engage with them. Like I said, Baker's reports of conflict are surely also accurate—both can be true! But he has written an article that, to me, painted campus as constantly warlike, which I found borderline misleading in its omissions.
Speaking of omissions, standard journalistic practice is for a writer to disclose at the earliest possible opportunity any personal affiliation that might either impact their reporting or create the perception of impacting their reporting. Theo Baker's Jewish identity surely falls into this category. He does address it—but waits until 75% of the way through the article, which feels irresponsible (though some fault lies with the editors who didn't more that paragraph higher in the story).
Finally, if I could ask Baker anything, it would be what he hoped to accomplish with this story. Perhaps the response is that, as a journalist, his job is to simply tell the truth of what he sees and experiences. That his job is simply to report out. That he is not in charge of what happens next. Of course, the result of his investigation into MTL is a case study in journalistic impact. He can't be insensible to it, but there is an argument to be made that he's not responsible for it.
That said, at the college level in particular (where resources are more scarce and there are a finite number of directions one can shine journalism's spotlight), it feels worth interrogating what the point of it all might be. And I'd argue that one point could be to make a place and an institution better. I don't believe this article does that. When Stanford—and particularly Stanford students—have been in the national spotlight these past few years, the scrutiny and trolling from the outside world always seem to amp up tensions in ways that make it impossible to resolve conflict. Last year, when student protestors and an administrator at the law school clashed with a federal judge, students were doxxed and harassed online. Trucks drove around campus toting screens that displayed their name, pictures, and contact information. It made those involved feel more unsafe and more entrenched. In short, it made everything worse. While Theo Baker's article bemoans the state of Stanford campus, he had to know what the result would be. At this point, it's hard for me not to see him as part of the problem.