by Sloane DiBari, Editor-in-Chief
For years, there was a Cold War-esque tension between Oberlin’s two hottest newspapers, except that our mutually assured destruction involved foam Nerf bullets instead of civilization-ending thermonuclear weaponry. This fall, though, The Grape and The Oberlin Review have officially chosen peace. In light of this watershed moment for Grape–Review relations, I spoke with my co-editor-in-chief, Naiya Patel-Kapka, and Review editors-in-chief Sway Sarkar and Isaiah Johnson about Greview lore, student journalism, and the Marketplace of Ideas.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Sloane DiBari: Describe the relationship between the Grape and the Review in one sentence.
Sway Sarkar: Besties, buddies, secret lovers.
Isaiah Johnson: Facts. Enemies to lovers trope?
The [first] editor-in-chief of the Grape left the Review to start the Grape. It was just in the cards.
Naiya Patel-Kapka: There’s always been healthy competition. Ever since I joined staff, I’ve been like, “We should have a Nerf gun fight between the sides of Burton.” [The Review’s office is on the opposite side of Burton basement from the Grape’s.]
SD: Who would win the Nerf gun fight?
IJ: That’s the question.
SS: I was reading this OTC [Off the Cuff interview, long-running Review staple] with Grape editors. The framing seemed insulting to the Grape. I feel like the Grape being framed in the shadow of the Review was at the root of this animosity, but the Grape has become this amazing thing in its own right.
IJ: I think the Review has this straight-tie reputation, whereas the Grape has gotten down this balance between quality work and approachability; people actually want to write for the Grape. You guys write seriously, but I think a lot of readers [find] it more relatable. That’s inspiring to me, as editor-in-chief of the Review.
NPK: It’s been kind of like, “the Review is the ‘serious’ paper,” and we’ve taken “alternative” as more like, we’re alt—like the “dark side of student journalism.” Because of that, people have more perceived freedom. But we also run into issues with that. Some people get a little too free.
SD: What could the Review and the Grape learn from each other?
SS: The Review is the official paper of record for the College and the City of Oberlin, so there are certain ways we need to think about how we present ourselves to that leadership. At the same time, we want people to pick up the Review at dinner and be like, “This is so fun to read!” I went to TWC and there were a million Grape copies. It’s such a joy to see that. We try to be an institution on campus and in the community, and that’s a little different for us, but we’re looking to remind students that we serve them, too.
NPK: I think we can learn from you guys to have a more structured approach to [reaching] the town and being more of a record for the City of Oberlin.
SD: How much overlap do you think there is in readership and content?
IJ: I think people read the Grape and the Review and get equal satisfaction in different ways. I take pride in our News section—it really makes me aware of the rock I’m living underneath as a student. A lot of people [think] there’s “nothing going on in Ohio.” But there actually is a lot. The Review communicates that very well. The Grape allows me to tap into campus culture in a way that the Review doesn’t.
NPK: It’s like the New York Times and the New Yorker—the same audience [reads] them for different things and gets something new from each.
SD: Let’s talk more about how our readers and staff perceive each of our publications. What misconceptions might people have?
IJ: You guys are really cool. It’s like, “Okay, they’re those guys.” Lowkey unapproachable. No shade. You guys have so much aura.
NPK: Glazing us?
IJ: Yeah, I am. I’m unashamed of it.
SS: I’ve heard people say that we side with the administration, which is crazy to me because the administration doesn’t think we side with them at all. We feel like, maybe, we’re doing good work if everyone around us thinks we’re siding with someone else—we’re representing voices with as much diversity as possible.
As for what I think of Grape people, this is my number one surface-level observation: they have impeccable fashion. We potentially have a more heterogeneous staff. We have people who are on sports teams and people in co-ops—not that those are opposite ends of the spectrum.
NPK: You guys have more of a Breakfast Club vibe.
SD: We’re more just the alt Breakfast Club girl. Her and the nerd guy.
SS: As for the Review straight-tie perception, anyone who’s been inside our office and seen the wacky stuff on our walls would forget about that.
IJ: A recent gem that was published on the wall was, “I looked up and saw four nipples in my face.” There has been a fair share of mess at the Review, all to say.
SS: This is a calmer time at the Review because the entire staff seems friendly and purely friendly. In the past, that’s not been the case. It’s not that they’re opps—it’s that they’re a little too friendly. “Reviewcest” is the term. We are observing a lack of Reviewcest at present.
NPK: I don’t think we’ve had Grapecest.
IJ: I think, maybe, the Review is more of a catalyst to journalismcest.
SD: You guys do spend a lot more time together in person.
IJ: Thousands of hours every week in that office.
NPK: We’re mostly just in the office for meetings. Layout staff are here the most. During production, they’re here staring at their computers and actually losing their minds—but in a really fun and beautiful way. That’s how some of these wonderful pictures get drawn. [She gestures at the Grape office’s wall of exquisite avant-garde line drawings.]
SS: Grape layout is awesome.
NPK: They always sort some chaos out. They’re our GOATs.
SD: Sway, you covered some Review misconceptions. Naiya, how would you address misconceptions about the Grape?
NPK: I think there’s a misconception that we just play around. We do love to play. The core of our paper is play, but we are also doing intense work.
We want everyone to come try their hand at contributors’ meetings. I think people get scared, thinking that we’re, like, too cool for school. And we are. But we’re not intimidating. We’re really nice and accepting!
SD: Any final thoughts on the future of student journalism at Oberlin?
SS: The world needs Greview.
Oberlin is a truly special place for journalism. We have such a wide variety of publications apart from [us two]. I’ve been feeling this need to take more responsibility for interactions within the journalism community. All the super cool people need to unite and talk about the power of the press.
NPK: What do you guys think about all these new publications?
SS: I’m excited. There are so many. If even one continues on for a long time, we’ll get to be part of its history.
IJ: The niches they’re filling make sense. To be a little neoliberal—
SD: To lib out?
IJ: To lib out, the marketplace of ideas is a great place. [With] more publications, the more competition, the better quality of articles we publish, we all get stronger—I hope. Trickle-down journalism.
