The camel’s back has broken
Okay, I think I’ve reached it.
My Howard Beale-I’m-mad-as-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-any-more moment. It’s here and I’m ready to go to the television camera and start yelling for action.
The point where everything adds up and I’m not willing to put up with the status quo any more when it comes to student publications being unjustifiably censored by administrators around the country.
In just the past couple of months, there have been numerous stories from numerous states – Missouri, Nebraska, Georgia, California – where administrators have run roughly over the rights of the student press, showing little regard for state educational codes and Supreme Court decisions and even less for dedicated student journalists and advisers. Look at one not-so-little occurrence in my backyard, In Wentzville, Mo. Look at the pages (http://tinyurl.com/yg9wlh4) and decide for yourself.
There’s something ironic about the fact that a story on inking (tattoos) was what stopped the Wolf’s Howl from being printed on newsprint … wait for it … with ink.
The stories weren’t, in any way, inflammatory. Informative, but not inflammatory. They even warned of the perils and pitfalls of getting a tattoo at the principal’s initial suggestion.
One of the co-editors of the paper is a nominee for Story of the Year from NSPA, who has been interviewed by the SPLC and Suburban Journals and defended her paper and its actions admirably. These are students who know what they are doing.
The adviser, Cathy McCandless, was nominated for the Missouri Interscholastic Press Association’s Teacher of the Year award last year. She is active in MIPA, Scholastic School Publications of St. Louis (SSP) and helped plan the national convention in St. Louis last year.
These are bright, dedicated, passionate people who produce top-notch student journalism. And they’re being censored for stories that are well done and relevant to the students at their school, for reasons that barely pass the laugh test when they are spoken aloud.
So what I’m asking you to do now, if you’re reading this blog, is to take action.
First, follow the links John Bowen has linked to in previous posts. Then read them. And then, get upset. Finally, take some action.
Comment below. Teach your students, your coworkers, your administrators, why this is wrong.
Contact those of us who write for this blog. Or who are members of JEA. Or NSPA. Or CSPA. Talk to fellow teachers who are members of your state or regional journalism teacher associations. Contact your union reps, board of education, city council, local representative or someone even higher up. Ask them to work with you to make it impossible for administrators to censor the student press.
But let’s get these people, these people who have influence or a platform or power to use what they possess. Let’s get them to realize that when censorship takes place, there is no one who is bettered by it. Let’s get these people to start working in their district or county or region or state to start contacting their representatives and standing up for the rights of student journalists and advisers.
Only seven states have anti-Hazelwood laws. Seven. Let’s start the fight now to make it eight. Or ten. Or fifty.
Read MoreCan the Elements of Journalism help replace prior review?
As we’ve tried to emphasize in the last several posts, prior review is not a valid or workable educational practice. It betrays the trust of the audience (as well as that of student journalists and their advisers) and negates any concept of students taking responsibility for what they write.
Let’s see if we can build some common ground to lessen the need for prior review, which we have seen lately undermines the whole educational process.
Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel call this approach the science of reporting.
Together, these points, say the authors, lead to the discipline of verification, meaning published material is accurate, truthful and in context.
Paired with responsible journalism, as defined by JEA and outlined in an earlier post, Kovach and Rosenstiel’s verification of information and science of reporting provide a framework for scholastic journalism without prior review.
Given the outrageous examples of recent prior review, isn’t it time to give student journalists a chance to prove good journalism can and will occur without review?
In their book, The Elements of Journalism, they outline five points for this concept:
• Never add anything that was not there: This requires solid reporting and a variety of credible sources.
• Never deceive the audience: This requires building a framework of trust with your audiences and ties to the next point.
• Be as transparent as possible about methods and motive: It allows the audience to judge the validity of the information, the process by which it was gathered and the motives and biases of the journalists providing it, the authors say.
• Rely on your own original reporting: Reporters who can do their own work, with encouragement and support from school officials and advisers will produce stronger, more complete reporting. This might even mean turning off the Internet filters so they can have unfiltered access to information and sources.
• Exercise humility: Journalists should be humble about their own skills as well as what they see and hear from sources. This reinforces the need to know perspective on stories as well as being open-minded to story-changing resources.
Recent examples of prior review leading to censorship clearly show we must find a way to encourage students practice what they are taught. We hope The Elements of Journalism can help pave the way.
Read MoreMove over, Michael Myers. There’s a new slasher in town.
It really must be the season of the witch.
The Student Press Law Center today tweeted yearbook censorship in a Summerville, Georgia, high school. According to a WRCB-TV report, the new principal censored the fall-released yearbook prepared by students and their now retired adviser last spring.
His target: four pages of shirtless boys playing basketball.
The pages were cut from the book. Slashed, leaving ragged edges, tattered memories.
The reason: “Inadvertently,” WRCB-TV quoted the new principal, ” the school administration did not approve the 2008 -2009 yearbook in its entirety; there were several photographs that did not reflect an appropriate image of the school or our community. The pages which contained the photos were removed.” The principal declined further comment.
If that does not bring a chill, consider that other photos of boys without shirts remain in the yearbook.
The system’s superintendent told the television station the principal “is trying to improve the image of the school, and the academic programs of the school. He has it headed in the right direction.”
It is a direction the former adviser does not approve.
In a video section of the report the retired adviser said he was very disappointed with the decision to mutilate the yearbook.
” There was absolutely nothing inappropriate about the pages that were cut from the book,” the adviser of 27 years was quoted on the video. “I am offended by the lack of regard shown for the students pictured on those page, the students who worked on the yearbook staff last year, and most of all, the students who purchased the yearbook.”
So say we all.
Move over Michael Myers. There is a new slasher in town and, frighteningly enough, another tale of horror in yet another town.
Read MoreOct. 30 review extends the scary season
An Oct. 30 news flash from the Student Press Law Center scares me.
And Halloween is past.
A Nebraska principal prior reviewed an student paper’s interview with the system’s superintendent THEN replaced the student story with a version the superintendent edited and re-worded.
Inappropriate answers for a good public image, you know.
Along the way the principal also decided a student editorial about students attending school board meetings to keep up with current topics as inappropriate.
These moves scare me because they go far beyond any sensible arguments any school official could make for prior review. In effect they destroy the need for student media, suggesting instead a total control of what reaches the public. It goes beyond prior review to prior restraint. It suggests modifying information to shape the public’s view is educationally justifiable.
No reasonable pedagogical concern can justify these actions.
Halloween is past, but at least in this system in Nebraska a new season of Trick, no Treat, is not.
Read More