# Columbia Daily Spectator University News coverage audit

**Study window:** October 1, 2023–August 10, 2026  
**Collection cutoff:** August 10, 2026; the latest archived article was dated August 5  
**Corpus:** 1,527 University News articles  
**Result:** the administrative-deference hypothesis was not established; the added progressive-worsening/current-leadership claim was not supported

## Finding in one sentence

After an authorized census crawl, independent manual review, validation, and parser repair, the reliable evidence did not show that University News systematically favored administrators—and the diversity-oriented manual audit more often found the opposite—while the only census-wide semantic signals consistent with deference were unstable, failed manual validation, and were therefore suppressed.

## Corpus and audit trail

Spectator's official News page divides University News into Administration, Academics, and Student Life. Following every visible archive page produced 1,527 unique in-window URLs: 671 Administration, 266 Academics, and 590 Student Life. The observed archive dates run from October 2, 2023 through August 5, 2026. No later August article is implied by the August 10 cutoff.

All 1,527 public pages yielded nonempty text, titles, bylines, dates, URLs, and body hashes. The repaired private working corpus contains 1,539,459 normalized body words. It is not redistributed. Public files contain metadata, hashes, coding, and at most one short manually selected excerpt per audit row.

The initial search-index attempt is retained only as an audit trail. It found 561 mixed `/news/` candidates and could not support full-text inference. The user later stated that Spectator authorized a complete University News crawl and instructed the team to proceed. The University News addendum was frozen before outcome calculation. It defines competing explanations, units, actor categories, variables, thresholds, statistical tests, missingness, updates/corrections, robustness checks, and a κ=.60 semantic-validation gate.

Independent methods review caught two defects. First, topic control initially searched whole bodies and overclassified incidental protest references; the old results were preserved and topic control was limited to headline, description, and two body paragraphs. Second, 69 interactive templates had lost paragraph boundaries, 204 recovered descriptions used section labels, and one story contained concatenated text. Seventy pages were re-requested at the same one-second global rate limit, descriptions and paragraphs were repaired, the old corpus was preserved, and nine changed manual-sample bodies were re-reviewed. These corrections were logged before affected recalculation.

## Manual design and reliability

The manual audit contains 230 articles (15.06% of the census), allocated across every subdesk-quarter cell. Within cells, the selector cycled through rare combinations of topic, actor presence, official origin, marked language, and length before using a stable SHA-256 rank. That design is excellent for finding algorithm failures and boundary cases. It is not a representative probability sample: 183 of 413 fine-grained screen cells, containing 924 articles, received no audit row. Accordingly, manual percentages and bootstrap intervals describe the audit set only.

Two coders independently read 140 full articles each, with 50 overlaps. A third reviewer adjudicated all 50. Of 183 disputed cells, 91 resolved to coder A, 88 to coder B, and four to a third value; agreed fields were not changed. After the parser repair, a reviewer reassessed nine affected rows and changed five.

Intercoder reliability was strong enough for the core manual treatment measures:

| Variable | Valid pairs | Raw agreement | Kappa/statistic |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Article type | 50 | 84% | κ=.765 |
| Administration headline frame | 50 | 82% | κ=.764 |
| Challenger headline frame | 50 | 76% | κ=.683 |
| Administration lede frame | 50 | 70% | κ=.618 |
| Challenger lede frame | 50 | 74% | κ=.648 |
| Administration tone | 44 | 61% | weighted κ=.650 |
| Challenger tone | 37 | 89% | weighted κ=.829 |
| Administration skepticism | 38 | 71% | weighted κ=.865 |
| Challenger skepticism | 35 | 71% | weighted κ=.785 |
| Release reliance | 50 | 78% | weighted κ=.872 |
| First actor | 50 | 92% | κ=.885 |
| First quoted actor | 50 | 94% | κ=.914 |

Documents, affected sourcing, context, follow-up, and identification risk also met κ=.60. Administrative actor presence had 92% agreement but κ=.468 because prevalence was highly imbalanced. Official-assertion testing (κ=.377) and challenger-assertion testing (κ=.545) were below threshold; those manual fields are reported with a warning rather than treated as firm evidence.

## Primary hypothesis: manual evidence

One hundred eighteen audit articles contained both administration and challenger actors. The main paired findings were:

| Measure | Administration-minus-challenger gap | Audit-set 95% interval | N | Meaning |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
| Skepticism, 0–3 | +0.373 | +0.200 to +0.536 | 110 | Administrators received more scrutiny |
| Reporter tone, -2 to +2 | -0.415 | -0.559 to -0.271 | 118 | Administrators received more unfavorable tone |
| Adverse headline probability | +0.314 | +0.186 to +0.443 | 70 | Administrators received more adverse headline framing |
| Adverse lede probability | +0.333 | +0.218 to +0.449 | 78 | Administrators received more adverse lede framing |
| First-quote probability | -0.076 | -0.246 to +0.093 | 118 | No established official priority |

Every reliable treatment direction is contrary to the campaign's directional hypothesis. The assertion-testing gap also favored testing official claims (+0.141, N=78), but its low intercoder reliability makes it weak supporting evidence.

These results do not prove that the entire archive is harder on administrators. The audit is purposively diverse and includes many conflict, official-origin, short, and rare-screen cases. It would be equally wrong to convert its contrary rates into population claims. The safe conclusion is narrower: a substantial, systematically selected human audit did not reveal the proposed direction and instead found repeated administration-critical treatment.

The audit also found that 34.8% of its stories scored 2 or 3 for official-material reliance, 92.6% used documents/records/data, 44.3% consulted affected people, 96.1% supplied power/history/consequence context, and 68.7% had follow-up orientation. These are stress-test sample rates, not estimates for all University News. They show that announcement dependence and substantial independent reporting coexist.

## Complete-census automated screen—and why it is suppressed

The rule-based screen parsed every article and created 6,614 detected actor-category rows after parser repair. Its strict paired results were:

| Automated measure | Screen estimate | Article-resampling interval | N | Direction |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
| Administration-minus-challenger scrutiny | -0.064 | -0.106 to -0.023 | 1,199 | Consistent with administrative deference |
| Marked reporter framing | -3.21 points | -5.03 to -1.37 | 1,294 | Consistent with administrative deference |
| First-quote probability | +6.18 points | +0.93 to +11.36 | 1,294 | Official first-quote priority |
| Direct-quote-word share | -6.59 points | -10.38 to -2.82 | 1,264 | Challengers received more quotation words; contrary |

These are not validated findings. The broad actor dictionary reversed the framing gap to **+10.8 points**, meaning administrators received more marked framing. Category-specific strict framing also differed: the student/organization comparison ran in the hypothesis direction; protester and union intervals crossed zero; faculty critics ran contrary. First-actor order favored challengers. The automated evidence is therefore mixed even before validation.

Validation was decisive. Against the repaired, adjudicated 230-row manual audit, none of 19 semantic measures reached κ=.60. Actor detection overcounted broad institutional and student terms; actor windows confused quoted criticism with reporter voice; the “affected person” proxy was actually any challenger quotation; article-wide document terms were not necessarily tests of a focal claim; and first-quote attribution often missed names or delayed attribution. Mean quote-attribution confidence was about .615, with 647 articles below .60.

Per the frozen rule, every automated semantic population estimate is suppressed. They remain in `automated-screening-results.json` so readers can reproduce the mixed signal and see exactly why it failed. Metadata counts and hashes remain valid.

## Added claim: progressive worsening under current leadership

After initial validation, the user added a thesis that coverage was best during the encampments, then progressively worsened toward pro-administration treatment, especially under editor in chief Tsehai Alfred and University News co-editor Spencer Davis. Because the claim arrived after results existed, the test is explicitly exploratory.

The sequence was fixed as:

1. encampment/NYPD peak, April 17–May 31, 2024;
2. later 148th board, June 1–December 10, 2024;
3. 149th board, December 11, 2024–December 9, 2025; and
4. 150th board, December 10, 2025–August 10, 2026 cutoff.

The claim predicts declining administration-minus-challenger scrutiny and adverse framing, and increasing administration tone, first-quote probability, and quotation share.

### Manual time pattern

No manual measure followed a monotonic pro-administration sequence. Administration-minus-challenger scrutiny was +0.176, +0.500, +0.524, and +0.278 across the four stages. Tone was -0.167, -0.429, -0.413, and -0.286. Adverse lede gaps were +0.231, +0.333, +0.417, and +0.500—opposite the predicted worsening. First-quote gaps ended at -0.238 in the 150th period, meaning challengers appeared first more often in that small cell.

Every manual current-minus-encampment interval crossed zero. Current paired-cell sizes ranged from 12 to 21 depending on the measure. Those data neither establish a current-period shift nor justify comparing named editors as causes.

### Automated time pattern

Only one of four suppressed screens moved monotonically in the predicted direction: administration's relative quote-word share increased from -18.8 points at the encampment peak to -2.9 points in the 150th period. The current-minus-encampment difference was +15.9 points. But direct-quote words were not manually counted and attribution confidence was low, so this is a lead for future coding, not publishable evidence.

The other screens contradicted the thesis. Automated scrutiny moved from -0.128 at the encampment peak to +0.051 in the 150th period; current minus encampment was +0.178 (interval +0.031 to +0.324), meaning more—not less—scrutiny of administration in the current period. Marked framing became less administration-favorable overall, and official first-quote priority was highest during the encampment peak rather than the current period.

The requested leadership claim is therefore **not supported**. The current period is also right-censored, topics differ substantially over time, and no assignment messages, edit histories, or interviews connect Alfred or Davis to the measured choices. Leadership labels are descriptive controls only.

## Strong journalism and contrary cases

Several stories make an absolute “Spectator protects institutional power” thesis untenable:

- [Barnard altered its policies after removing a “Solidarity with Palestine” statement](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2023/12/08/barnard-altered-its-policies-after-removing-a-solidarity-with-palestine-statement-from-a-departmental-website/) compared dated pages, governance rules, official explanations, and external standards.
- [Inside Columbia's surveillance and disciplinary operation for student protesters](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/09/12/inside-columbias-surveillance-and-disciplinary-operation-for-student-protesters-3/) used internal emails, voicemail, policy, experts, disciplinary outcomes, and affected students.
- [Columbia calls itself a “modern and accessible campus”](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/12/23/columbia-calls-itself-a-modern-and-accessible-campus-not-all-of-its-wheelchair-users-agree/) combined four wheelchair users, observation, maps, history, and University responses.
- [ICE did not have an arrest warrant for Mahmoud Khalil](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/04/24/ice-did-not-have-arrest-warrant-for-mahmoud-khalil-sipa-24-at-time-of-arrest-court-documents-reveal/) closely read court filings, records, video, and counsel claims.
- [Columbia completed its University Senate review, but senate had not received it](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2026/02/11/columbia-completed-its-review-of-the-university-senate-but-senate-has-not-received-the-final-report/) used statutes, bylaws, history, competing responses, an update, and a correction.
- [University senators criticize the “largely opaque” review report](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2026/05/22/largely-opaque-process-university-senators-criticize-senate-review-report-at-first-plenary-since-release/) directly analyzed report data and internal inconsistencies alongside Shipman's rebuttal and senate history.

The current 150th-board sample also contains document investigations about Epstein relationships, federal civil-rights testimony, shared governance, and the task force that student senators said sidelined them. These do not immunize the newsroom from criticism; they are material evidence against the proposed progressive capitulation.

## Narrow concerns that remain legitimate

The audit does not say “no problems.” It found announcement-driven briefs, official-origin stories with limited affected sourcing, and a concrete July 2026 union story whose “stunning reversal” language is more marked than the neutral opening of the Tel Aviv Global Center announcement. Some stories identified people facing immigration, discipline, employment, harassment, or safety risk; the text package cannot determine photo consent or necessity. These examples warrant case review, newsroom policies, and better source/quote measurement.

What they do not warrant is a leap from selected examples to a proven systemic or leadership-caused bias. Framing, tone, sourcing, assertion testing, factual error, and ethical harm are different constructs.

## Input-document claims and editorial history

The proposal is an interested party's negotiating document. It alleges photograph-related disciplinary harm, anonymity breaches, “doxxing,” sensationalized coverage, an organizational boycott, and a past source relationship. The revised essay is the primary editorial text; it narrows absolute accusations, acknowledges strong reporting, and treats career incentives as a structural possibility rather than a named person's motive. Nine comments still request evidence for announcement patterns, career incentives, press-release dependence, and an unidentified Public Safety “corruption” story.

EV1 preserves extensive redlining and an editorial response. Its objections demanded specific examples, disputed “complete absence” claims, distinguished stated rationales from motives, rejected unsupported Public Affairs control, and supplied counterexamples. The 60-row claim ledger classifies 8 document/external claims as verified, 4 partially verified, 6 disputed, 33 unverified, and 9 opinion. Those counts are not severity weights.

The proposal's serious photograph, discipline, anonymity, “doxxing,” boycott, and identifiable-person claims remain unverified. Its requested source-group veto over images, blanket anonymity/comment arrangements, and concealed affiliations also create tensions with editorial independence and transparency. They are proposals, not existing ethical obligations.

## Leadership timeline

Official managing-board announcements support these descriptive periods:

| Period | Study dates | Editor in chief | Managing editor | University News editor(s) | Editorial page, separate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 147th | Oct. 1–Dec. 12, 2023 | Irie Sentner | Andrew Park | Esha Karam; Isabella Ramírez | Milène Klein |
| 148th | Dec. 13, 2023–Dec. 10, 2024 | Isabella Ramírez | Esha Karam | Shea Vance; Sarah Huddleston | Colin Roedl |
| 149th | Dec. 11, 2024–Dec. 9, 2025 | Shea Vance | Heather Chen | Isha Banerjee | Achilles Frangos |
| 150th | Dec. 10, 2025–cutoff | Tsehai Alfred | Manuela Moreyra | Spencer Davis; Emily Pickering | Camille Duran |

The current-role prompt is verified at cutoff. The 150th period ends here only because the dataset ends; it is not a claim that anyone's role ended. Mutable About Us HTML served inconsistent old/current names, so annual announcements and dated credits were preferred. Deputy roles are point observations unless a full term is documented.

## SPJ Code assessment

The complete Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics is a nonbinding external framework.

**Seek Truth and Report It.** Testing powerful actors, using records, distinguishing allegations from evidence, providing context, and following decisions over time fit the Code. The manual audit found many such examples. A framing criticism is not itself a factual-error finding.

**Minimize Harm.** Identifying protesters, immigrants, workers, abuse survivors, or others facing discipline and harassment requires a necessity/consent inquiry. The proposal raises a legitimate issue but does not provide the specific images, hearing exhibits, communications, and outcomes needed to prove harm or “doxxing.”

**Act Independently.** Official-source dependence is a real structural risk. It is not proof that Public Affairs controls coverage. Conversely, an interested group receiving image vetoes, blanket anonymity, or concealed affiliations can itself compromise independence and transparency.

**Be Accountable and Transparent.** Visible corrections, update labels, methods disclosure, explanations of anonymity/photo choices, and prompt accuracy responses are appropriate standards. The archive contains many corrections and updates, but automated detection failed validation and is not reported as a population compliance rate.

## Limitations

- The manual audit is diversity-oriented, not representative; its intervals are not archive-population intervals.
- Every automated semantic measure failed the preregistered validation gate.
- Strict/broad actor dictionaries and challenger categories produce different or opposite framing directions.
- Quote words, attribution verbs, verified unique-source counts/types, and actor-category-specific manual codes need a redesigned instrument.
- The repaired corpus scores current page versions, cannot recover silent edits, and cannot fully assess images or consent.
- Topic and event mix differ across leadership periods; the current period is incomplete.
- No causal evidence links any named editor to the observed article features.
- Article-resampling intervals describe a notional stream of comparable stories, not uncertainty from archive sampling and not coding error.

## What would strengthen the campaign's claims

1. A separately drawn representative probability sample whose manual codebook includes category-specific actors, every quote/quote word, attribution verb, unique source/type, corrections, and actor-specific evidence testing.
2. Replication of an administration-favorable gap with reliable coding, confidence intervals, topic/event/length/type/time controls, and no strict/broad sign reversal.
3. Topic-matched time comparisons with adequate current-period cells and the completed 150th term.
4. Assignment records, edits, newsroom interviews, or communications supporting a mechanism and named-leader involvement.
5. Exact images, consent/anonymity communications, discipline records, hearing exhibits, and documented consequences supporting the proposal's harm allegations.

## What would weaken the campaign's claims

1. A representative sample retaining the current manual directions: greater administrative scrutiny and more adverse framing.
2. Additional current-period record-based investigations and corrections.
3. Evidence that apparent time changes follow event/topic mix rather than leadership.
4. High affected-person and record use in independently originated administrative stories.
5. Failure to corroborate photograph, “doxxing,” boycott, and Public Affairs claims after fair verification and right of reply.

## Final assessment

The analysis found isolated evidence consistent with concern about announcement dependence and a narrow framing asymmetry. It **did not establish** systematic administrative deference, did not show a progressive worsening under current leadership, and did not “prove bias.” The strongest reliable human-coded treatment results ran in the opposite direction. A future representative, quote-complete, category-specific manual study could change that assessment; the current evidence cannot honestly support the campaign's desired conclusion.
