Pages Navigation Menu

Dealing with unwanted, forced prior review? QT26

Posted by on Oct 31, 2017 in Blog, Ethical Issues, Legal issues, Scholastic Journalism, Teaching | 0 comments

Share

by John Bowen, MJE

JEA historically has opposed prior review of student media by school officials.

That opposition continues.

Prior review leads only to control, active censorship and iis the first step toward the spread of fake news and less than complete disinformation. 

Students and advisers, though, may have no immediate choice but to be under prior review by school officials.

The question then becomes what might the Scholastic Press Rights Committee recommend for consideration until adviser and students, and maybe school officials, create a way to trust and empower student decision-making and civic engagement as designated public forums.

Consider these possibilities:

As journalism teachers we know our students learn more when they make content choices. Prior review and restraint do not teach students to produce higher quality journalism or to become more journalistically responsible.

As journalism teachers we know the only way to teach students to take responsibility for their decisions is to train them and for that responsibility.

As journalism teachers we know democracy depends on students who understand all voices have a right to be heard and have a voice in their school and community.

Thus, to help students achieve professional standards, journalism educators should consider the following process:

  • Encourage transparency about who determines the content of a student publication by alerting readers and viewers when student media are subject to prior review and restraint;
  • Advocate for the educational benefits of student press freedom if student media are subject to prior review or restraint;
  • Provide students with access to sources of professional advice outside the school for issues they need to address;
  • Attempt to follow and support JEA’s Adviser Code of Ethics;
  • Provide students with tools that include adequate knowledge and resources to successfully carry out their work. By using these tools, students build trust in the learning process and the theories on which it is based;
  • Encourage students to seek multiple points of view and to explore a variety of credible sources in their reporting and decision-making;
  • Coach instead of making decisions, modeli the value of the learning process and demonstrate the trust we place in our educational system;
  • Empower students to understand what journalistic responsibility requires and how to achieve credible journalism where prior review and restraint are not necessary;
  • Model a professional newsroom atmosphere where students share in and take responsibility for their work. In so doing, scholastic journalists increase dialogue and help ensure civic engagement;
  • Use peer editing to encourage student interaction, analysis and problem solving;
  • Instruct students about civic engagement and journalism’s role in maintaining and protecting our democratic heritage;
  • Showcase student media where the dissemination of information is unfiltered by prior review and restraint so the school’s various communities receive accurate, truthful and complete information.

While we know advisers will make decisions regarding prior review and other educational issues based on what they believe they can support philosophically, the SPRC reiterates its strong rejection of prior review, and hence prior restraint, as tools in the educational process.

Even though we offer tQuick Tip below as a temporary measure for those who face prior review or have no choice about prior review, this process is not a pathway to building stronger student media and ultimately more engaged citizens.

 

Quick Tips: When prior review is your only choice

Guideline:  While students and advisers, who have to operate under prior review, work toward changing that situation, they should also believe in, and support, those who practice journalism as a designated public forum.

Question: What policies should you negotiate when you are stuck with prior review?

Key points/action: JEA historically has – and does – oppose prior review by school officials. It is an unacceptable practice with no educational value. Prior review only leads to control, active censorship and the first steps toward fake news and less than complete disinformation.

It is possible, though, students and advisers have no immediate choice but to be under prior review by school officials.

The question then becomes what the SPRC would recommend until adviser, students and school officials, provide all involved (students, advisers, faculty, administrators, school board and communities) with a better learning environment than prior review.

Stance: While students and advisers work toward a no prior review goal, we would suggest these steps toward an alternative:

  • Student media are identified and practice as designated public forums for student expression where student editors and staff make all final decisions of content.
  • Before publishing or posting pages/broadcast/web materials, administrators have the length of a school day (the day they are given materials) to review content and to ask questions. Materials should be given in a timely manner.
  • All content must return to students’ hands at the end of the day, on schedule, for publication.
  • If administrators/school officials have questions, they may request meeting time within that day, which will not delay publication.
  • School officials may comment, ask questions or request changes.
  • All final decisions remain with the student journalists as they meet their deadlines. They can choose to heed school officials requests or suggestions or go with content as it was.

Reasoning/suggestions: If review is to help students learn and to identify areas of administrative concern rather than content control, this process should provide adequate opportunity for discussion and collaboration – and keep the journalistic process on track.

Student critical thinking, decision-making and application of learning objectives across the school’s mission remain intact, creating time for a more permanent forum practice to be forged.

Resources:  SPRC

Prior review

JEA’s Adviser Code of Ethics

Related: These points and other decisions about mission statement, forum status and editorial policy should be part of a Foundations Package that protects journalistically responsible student expression.

 

 

 

 

Read More

Responsibility in scholastic media starts with
ethics, accuracy, complete story QT23

Posted by on Oct 23, 2017 in Blog, Ethical Issues, News, Scholastic Journalism, Teaching | 0 comments

Share

Administrators may want student media that depicts the school in a positive light, that promotes good news and overlooks the negative.

Is this responsible journalism?

Advisers may want student media that reflects students’ technical proficiency such as mechanics, grammar and style. Little else matters.

Is this responsible journalism?

Students may want to preserve tradition, give students the content they want, focusing on predictable content sure to avoid administrative displeasure.

Is this responsible journalism?

The goal of responsible, ethical journalism is not met by simply deciding stories cannot be published or media practices that produce no educational value. Journalistic responsibility is a layered, textured process.

Resolution of content issues will not come from a series of “don’ts” framed for the students.

Resolution will come through thorough, accurate and credible journalism shaped by a strong mission statement, empowering policies and a staff manual rooted in ethical guidelines that enable student growth, critical thinking and decision-making.

Resolution is not created  by publishing fake news forged by censorship and fear of censorship.

Strong journalism is rooted in ethics, empowered by trust and enabled by policies and guidelines that demand responsibility.

Journalistic responsibility.

 

Quick Tips: Journalistic responsibility

Question: What we speak of responsible journalism, what do we mean?

Key points/action: Responsible journalism is ethical journalism. Administrators demand responsibility but the trouble is groups define it differently.

Responsible and ethical journalism is accurate, complete and cohesive. It’s credible and has integrity.

These elements combined create a path to ethical journalism. The path is much more difficult, if not impossible, censorship, prior review or self-censorship because students are intimidated from carrying out responsible journalism, exist

Journalism that is censored, incomplete and lacks context is not responsible. It’s fake news.

Stance: Journalistic responsibility begins with empowering student media to practice the little things:

  • Access to accurate, complete and truthful information
  • Ability to present information in context
  • Access to credible and trustworthy sources through interviewing, observation and research
  • Leadership through their content, decisions and actions
  • Opportunities to decide all content for student media, to apply the principles, skills and practices they are taught and learn from their successes

As student journalists take these steps, they will maintain the idea of free expression as democracy’s cornerstone,

Reasoning/suggestions:

Common threads of responsible journalism connect school officials, student journalists and news-media professionals. Guidelines expressed here reflect the belief student journalists and school officials share a commitment to the schools’ educational mission and practices, and that commitment focuses on building stronger and engaged citizens.

Responsible student journalists accept ethical guidelines and practices to best serve their communities. Responsible administrators embrace and enhance journalistic practices that carry out the mission of scholastic media and of the school in fortifying information their communities need to make informed decisions and action in a working democracy.

To that end, we build goals for journalistic responsibility by:

  • Establishing policies and practices that enable thorough, accurate, complete and cohesive reporting of student-decided content.
  • Applying critical thinking and decision-making skills and practices to assist students as they become productive citizens in a democracy.
  • Empowering advisers’ development and use of substantive journalism curricula and application experiences.
  • Maintaining open lines of communication between students, faculty and staff, administrators and communities designed to build trust create a maximum environment for truthful and complete sharing of information.
  • Reporting accurately, thoroughly, credibly and cohesively so process and product model integrity.
  • Operating student media that publish information in verbal and visual context that enhances comprehension for the greater good of all communities.

Related: These points and other decisions about mission statement, forum status and editorial policy should be part of a Foundations Package  that protects journalistically responsible student expression.

 

Read More

As ETHS administrators tighten the grip,
they may want to heed pastoral advice

Posted by on Oct 20, 2017 in Blog, Legal issues, News, Scholastic Journalism, Teaching | 1 comment

Share

by Stan Zoller, MJE
I had the opportunity to attend an event that was simply called “We the People:  Making Our Voices Heard.”

It featured an “advocacy resource fair” followed by presentations addressing the “State of Our Democracy.”

The first speaker hit the nail on the head about the event’s importance.

“We are doing what we should be doing.  Citizens of the World need to take responsibility of being good citizenry; we need to consider the state of our democracy because an informed citizenry makes good decisions.”

Bravo.

And who made this statement?

A local politician?  Nope.

An educator or school board member?  Nope.

A community activist with a special agenda? Nope.

An impassioned journalist? Nope.

It was Norval Brown. Wait, let me clarify that – Pastor Norval Brown.

Brown is Pastor at Christ United Methodist Church in Deerfield, Illinois, which hosted the event because it hosts community events on a regular basis.

Attendees were area residents and representatives of various civic organizations such as Common Cause and local chapters of the League of Women Voters.

Unfortunately, there were no school districts or school boards represented.

And this is where I erred. I should have extended an invitation to the Evanston Township High School (ETHS) Board of Education.

It might have learned a thing or two about civic engagement and why it is important our voices be heard – including student voices.

As was reported here Oct. 12, administrators at ETHS saw fit to confiscate and prohibit distribution of the Sept. 22 issue of The Evanstonian, the school newspaper because it had articles on student use of marijuana. Students were also ordered to remove the paper from the Evanstonian website.

To recap, several members of the Evanstonian staff along with myself and a representative from a local community activist organization made statements at a school building. If there was a ray of hope, as noted in my Oct. 12 posting, it was that one School Board member, Jonathan Baum, called for the matter to be discussed in open session at the next School Board meeting, Monday, Oct. 23.

The district released the following statement Thursday, Oct. 12:

Statement Regarding September 22, 2017 Evanstonian Articles

On September 22, 2017, the Evanston Township High School (ETHS) student newspaper published a series of articles under the heading The Pot Thickens… The two-page spread features six articles, including 6 Questions for a Drug Dealer and School Stress Causes Marijuana Usage. Both articles promote illegal conduct that also violates school policy. For example, the Drug Dealer article states that a reason to sell marijuana is to make money, as much as one hundred-sixty dollars per ounce. The School Stress article states that using marijuana makes a student funnier and more confident. The article goes on to state that a “feeling of euphoria and bliss” is caused by a chemical in marijuana.

 Dr. Marcus Campbell, Principal of ETHS, collaborated with the ETHS administrative team and legal counsel in reviewing the published articles. Dr. Campbell determined that the articles glorify both drug use and drug dealing, messages that are detrimental to ETHS students.

The U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Speech Right of Student Journalists Act both provide student journalists with certain rights to speech that ETHS celebrates. Those rights are limited. When student journalism incites unlawful acts, violation of school policy, or disrupts the school, the administration has the authority to impose limits. The articles on September 22, 2017 did cross these lines and were removed from circulation for that reason.

The statement has more holes in it than a Dunkin’ Donuts. To begin, the U.S. Constitution does not address student press rights because, odds are there was no student media when the Constitution was written. But why sweat details.

Secondly, there is an abysmal lack of clarity regarding Illinois’ Speech Rights of Scholastic Journalists Act. As noted in my Oct. 12 posting, there are four restrictions on scholastic journalists. They address libel, unwarranted invasion of privacy, violation of federal or state law and incitement of students to commit an unlawful act. Period.

A third component that is most irritating is the procedures detailed in the statement are not what students said transpired. Principal Marcus Campbell approved the issue before it was distributed. It was not until the next day when English and Reading Department Chair Samone Jones ordered the confiscation.

If there was a meeting with legal counsel students, parents, faculty, staff and the public were not made aware of it.  For good reason. It did not occur until after Jones ordered the confiscation. Odds are it also did not occur until after Oct. 9 School Board meeting because school officials were not expecting the subject be brought to light at a School Board meeting.

The statement shamefully infers students lied to the School Board and Campbell did not approve the paper.

The statement was issued Oct. 12. The next day student staff members met with Campbell and Superintendent Eric Witherspoon. It appears the ETHS administration is flexing its intimidation muscle as students and the adviser appear reluctant to respond to emails.  Why? Perhaps because they have been warned against sharing information and fear retribution.

My sources indicated that during the meeting Witherspoon said the journalism teacher was responsible for teaching what he called “journalistic shortcomings.”  Additionally, sources tell me Witherspoon made it clear the school could decide not to offer journalism and that the school could “yank the paper next year.”

Witherspoon reportedly supported Jones’ action, saying she has the responsibility to represent the whole school, and there must be “journalistic integrity” and the Evanstonian was not their “personal blog.”

Campbell reportedly told students they “could have worked through this.” What he forgot is they cooperated by showing him the edition before it was scheduled to distributed.  By saying it “could have been worked out” is like installing a smoke detector after the fire department has been called.

Efforts are under way to gain additional information using Illinois FOI laws.

In the meantime, it’s not clear who Witherspoon, Campbell, Jones and the rest of the Board are going to listen to because they seem to have their own ideas.

There is, however, one person they should listen to.

Pastor Brown.

Read More

Publishing memes also means
knowing copyright rules QT14

Posted by on Sep 24, 2017 in Blog, Law and Ethics, Quick Tips, Scholastic Journalism, Teaching | 0 comments

Share

Memes.

Entertainment. Political statements. A way to comment on issues, events, people.

And, if not done correctly, says Mark Goodman, Knight Chair in Scholastic Journalism, a way to violate the owner’s copyright. A violation several owners pursued.

If it’s not considered fair use, student media could be sued for copyright infringement or receive a letter demanding payment for use of the copyrighted work.

There is not much precedent about the use of memes and whether they are considered a fair use under copyright law.

That is the ultimate question.

If students comment on the meme itself, their use is probably going to be considered a fair use and it should be fine. Attribution is ethically appropriate but it’s not legally required.

On the other hand, if students use the meme because it illustrates something they want to say and they’re not engaged in some commentary about the original copyright work, it wouldn’t be a fair use, even if you attribute it. And in either case, attribution isn’t really a factor. Attributing a work to its source doesn’t avoid a copyright infringement claim.


Guideline and policy

Although most copyright owners might not complain about the use of their work in a meme, some have pursued payment from individuals who used their images without permission.

Being careful is wise.

Key points/action: There is not much precedent about the use of memes and whether they are considered a fair use under copyright law. That is the ultimate question.

If it’s not considered fair use, you could be sued for copyright infringement or receive a letter demanding payment for use of the copyrighted work.

Stance: If your students are commenting on the meme itself, their use is probably going to be considered a fair use and it should be fine. Attribution is ethically appropriate but it’s not legally required.

Reasoning/suggestions: On the other hand, if your students are using the meme because it illustrates something they want to say and they’re not engaged in some commentary about the original copyright work, it wouldn’t be a fair use, even if you attribute it. And in either case, attribution isn’t really a factor. Attributing a work to its source doesn’t avoid a copyright infringement claim.

Another potential copyright concern is with video dubs. Although a common event in some schools, video dubs need to be handled with legal and ethical care. It is essential, if the product is to go on the web, it is essential to follow all copyright requirements.

Guidelines for these may be found here.

Student media set a strong model for others to follow, so it is incumbent on them to follow copyright laws and ethical guidelines.

Resources: Mark Goodman, Knight Chair in Scholastic Journalism, Kent State University, September 2017.

How copyright is killing your favorite memes

Read my lips: Students should exercise caution when producing lip sync videos

Video dubs

Related: These points and other decisions about mission statement, forum status and editorial policy should be part of a Foundations Package  that protects journalistically responsible student expression.

 

Read More

Takedown requests:
when the right to preserve history
conflicts with the desire to forget it QT13

Posted by on Sep 20, 2017 in Blog, Ethical Issues, Legal issues, News, Quick Tips, Scholastic Journalism, Teaching | 0 comments

Share

Blog by Kristin Taylor

As more student newspapers move to digital platforms, editors and advisers are facing a new and insidious form of post-publication censorship: takedown requests.

The requests usually go something like this: “I was a student at [fill in name] high school [fill in number] years ago, and I was interviewed/wrote a story/was in a photo/made a comment that I regret now. I don’t want this showing up in Google searches. Please remove this story from your site.”

This hypothetical student may not know it, but her request is part of a much larger conversation about honoring individual privacy versus preserving the historical record. In 2014, Europe’s highest court ruled individuals have a “right to be forgotten” that may supersede the right to preserve and share information via search engines like Google. This court ruling is controversial and would probably not happen in the United States; the First Amendment has strong protections for free speech and press that would likely prevent this kind of revisionism, but that doesn’t stop individuals from wishing they could take back the past.

Lawyer Mike Godwin, creator of the tongue-in-cheek “Godwin’s law,” has “been thinking longer than just about anyone else about why people can sometimes behave awfully on the Internet,” according to the Washington Post. He is skeptical that we have more “right to be forgotten” online than we do in everyday life:

“There’s this fantasy that these people have that they have control over what they say or do online,” Godwin writes. “But if I say ‘I love you’ to someone, I can’t take it back. I have no control over what happens to it after that. Words have effect in the real world that you can’t take back. That’s language’s eerie power.”

[pullquote]“What you see underlying the ‘right to be forgotten’ is the idea that somehow there’s a sense of yourself out in the world that you can draw boundaries around,” Godwin continues. “That, I think, is fantasy. I sympathize with the fantasy. I think it’s a natural human impulse. But the fact is that we’re connected in ways that require us to think profoundly about how we present ourselves. And we’re never going to achieve the kind of control over that that one might want in an ideal world.”[/pullquote]

“What you see underlying the ‘right to be forgotten’ is the idea that somehow there’s a sense of yourself out in the world that you can draw boundaries around,” he continues. “That, I think, is fantasy. I sympathize with the fantasy. I think it’s a natural human impulse. But the fact is that we’re connected in ways that require us to think profoundly about how we present ourselves. And we’re never going to achieve the kind of control over that that one might want in an ideal world.”

On one level, I have sympathy for takedown requests. It’s true that we do a lot of growing in our high school years, and we do things we later regret. You only have to look at the growing number of articles and warnings about your “digital footprint” to realize this is a big issue in the Information Age. Unlike an op-ed published in a printed school paper, which is difficult to track down, an op-ed in an online paper is easily searchable. But so are a person’s social media posts and posts where others have tagged her. Our digital footprint isn’t going away, and part of being a successful 21st century citizen is learning to manage it.

I think we also need to help our students understand it’s all right to change our minds over time. Rather than insisting we have never held any other opinion or never made a mistake, we should embrace how our ideas and perspectives shift as we get older and have more experiences. Isn’t it healthier to acknowledge our past beliefs and mistakes rather than deny them? If a college admissions officer or future employer brings up an op-ed you wrote in high school, why not say, “Yes, I had a very different view back then than I do now. Let me tell you about how and why my viewpoint has changed since then.”

[pullquote]As sympathetic as I am to the impulse to “take it back,” I can’t support revisionist history. Part of the job of journalism is to provide a historical record — a true account of events and people from a point in time. Professional papers certainly won’t erase past articles, whether print or digital, and scholastic publications shouldn’t either except, perhaps, in extraordinary circumstances.​[/pullquote]

As sympathetic as I am to the impulse to “take it back,” I can’t support revisionist history. Part of the job of journalism is to provide a historical record — a true account of events and people from a point in time. Professional papers certainly won’t erase past articles, whether print or digital, and scholastic publications shouldn’t either except, perhaps, in extraordinary circumstances.​

So how should we deal with these requests when they arise? JEA’s Scholastic Press Rights Committee outlines ethical guidelines, staff manual processes and a list of suggestions and resources, one of which is this list of three takedown models for your staff manual. Using these guidelines, I worked with my editors at The Archer School for Girls to craft a takedown policy for our manual that errs on the side of preserving the historical record unless the potential harm to the person making the request outweighs all other factors. This is one possible model staffs could use as they begin to develop their own policies.

Staff Manual Model: Takedown Requests

The Oracle is a digital news source, but it is still part of Archer’s historical record. The Oracle’s primary purpose is to publish the truth, as best we can determine it, and be an accurate record of events and issues from students’ perspectives. Writers and editors use the 11 “Put Up” steps before publication to ensure the validity, newsworthiness and ethics of each article. For these reasons, the editorial board will not take down or edit past articles except in extraordinary circumstances.

If someone requests a takedown, the board will consider the following questions and actions:

  1. Does the content contain libel, inaccurate information, unwarranted invasion of privacy, obscenity or copyright infringement? If so, the editor-in-chief will remove this unprotected speech and add a corrections statement at the end of the article, as per the “Regarding Errors” policy. If, after careful investigation and discussion, the editorial board determines that the article is too heavily saturated with this unprotected speech to maintain, the board may decide to take the article down entirely. The board must come to consensus to make this decision.
  2. Does the content harm the requester so significantly that it outweighs all other factors? The editorial board will investigate this claim and weigh it against the value of an unaltered historical record. The board must come to consensus before taking down an article for this reason.
  3. If the content does not meet either of these extraordinary circumstances, it will remain posted.

Regardless of the outcome, the Editor-in-Chief will respond in writing to the request explaining the board’s action(s) and rationale for the final decision.

 

Guideline: Journalists may be asked to remove online content for any number of reasons. Just because content is unpopular or controversial does not mean a media staff should comply with such requests. When journalists meet their goal of producing consistent, responsible journalism, they likely will choose to leave the content in question online even in the face of criticism.

All media – including student media – provide a historical record of issues, events and comments. As such, content should not be changed unless there are unusual circumstances.

Another alternative to takedown demands would be to create publishing standards we would call Put Up criteria. Train student editors and staffers in why and how something should be published so takedown requests are avoided.

Key point: Source’s remorse, writer’s second-thoughts or other rethinking of existing information accessible to employers, colleges or simply to friends sometimes causes uncomfortable questions for student staffs.

What guidelines should student media staffers adapt or create that fulfills the role of historical-record, forum and source of information?

Stance: We feel there are no quick and easy answers, but plenty of ethical room for discussion and implementation of workable guidelines (not policy) that can withstand the test of time.

Reasoning/suggestions

  • In some cases, student editors may take down a story because they determine the content warrants a one-time exception (such as fabrication or to protect a source).
  • Reporters may elect to do a follow-up story.
  • If student editors choose to remove content, they should publish a note on the site explaining when and why the content was removed.
  • Takedown criteria should be outlined and explained in the staff manual.
  • Create guidelines and procedures to ensure students only post information and images they feel meet standards of responsible journalism: Put Up guidelines.

ResourcesTakedown demands? A roadmap of choices Scholastic Press Rights Committee

Respond to Takedown Demands, Student Press Law Center

Setting Criteria Before the Requests Come, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee

10 Steps to a Put-Up Policy, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee

Audio: Takedown Requests, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee, Press Rights Minute

5 Ways News Organizations Respond to ‘Unpublishing’ Requests, The Poynter Institute

Related: These points and other decisions about mission statement, forum status and editorial policy should be part of a Foundations Package that protects journalistically responsible student expression.

Read More