Why we covered the DNC more

A few readers have come forward and rightfully questioned why we have covered the Democratic National Convention more extensively than the Republican National Convention.

Although my response may not address every single criticism, our decision to send a reporting team was primarily a question of the best use of our resources.

From a practical standpoint, as a campus newspaper, we pay close attention to our budget. The expense of plane tickets and hotels stays in Tampa was prohibitive, but going to Charlotte entailed a short train ride and free accomodation at the family home of our photographer. This was a great opportunity for our staff right in our own backyard, and we would not pass that up.

With this in mind, we still published two articles last week referencing reactions from students and professors to the RNC as well as firsthand accounts from a student who actually saw Mitt Romney speak.

But ultimately, to report the RNC, we relied on our Internet connection and phone lines.

For journalism, boots on the ground is always better. In sending people to Charlotte, we certainly had the option to play down our presence and coverage. But, having asked our team to miss three days of class to constantly report, that alternative seemed foolish.

Furthermore, let me outline our longtime editorial standard for in-person election coverage. When a national, major political party figure or candidate, regardless of their views, holds public events in North Carolina, we make every effort to send a reporting team. We adhered to our own standard.

In that vein, I can promise that, had the locations been reversed, and Charlotte hosted Romney and Paul Ryan, we would have brought the same thorough coverage that a physical presence allows.