Going online? Think about these issues first
Think First button
Weighing benefits and negatives of legal and ethical considerations before creating an online presence is an important part of expanding student media’s outreach.
For relevant questions to ask before you jump in, go to JEA Digital Media’s site.
Read MoreGuidelines, recommendations for advisers facing prior review
At the spring Portland JEA/NSPA convention, JEA’s board passed a definition of prior review and prior restraint. The SPLC also recently endorsed the statement.
At the time, the Press Right Commission was directed to design a recommended process and guidelines on how advisers might handle prior review if faced with it. Below you will fine those guidelines and process along with links to supporting philosophy and resources. We welcome your input.
While we know advisers will make decisions regarding prior review and other educational issues based on what they believe they can best support philosophically, JEA reiterates its strong rejection of prior review, and hence prior restraint, as a tool in the educational process. With that belief, we feel an obligation to help advisers faced with this situation.
Statements to accompany JEA’s definitions of prior review and restraint:
As journalism teachers, we know our students learn more when they make publication choices and that prior review or restraint do not teach students to produce higher quality journalism.
As journalism teachers, we know the only way to teach students to take responsibility for their decisions is to give them the responsibility to make those decisions freely.
As journalism teachers, we know democracy depends on students understanding all voices have a right to be heard and knowing they have a voice in their school and community.
Thus, to help students achieve work that is up to 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 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;
• Provide students with tools that include adequate knowledge and resources to successfully carry out their work. By using these tools, we 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 make requirements or demands thus modeling the value of the learning process and demonstrating the trust we place in our educational system;
• Empower students to know the difference between sound and unsound journalism and how to counsel their peers about potential dangers;
• Model a professional newsroom atmosphere where students share in and take responsibility for their work. In so doing, we increase dialogue and help ensure civic and journalistic responsibility;
• 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.
Recommended process if facing prior review, restraint
If, after employing the above techniques, student journalists still object to changes an adviser discusses, the following describes a process to handle potential disagreement:
1. Adviser and students disagree about content for publication.
2. Adviser and students discuss all angles of the disagreement; they try to find common ground.
3. The adviser and students decide if the disagreement is based on an ethical issue or a legal one.
4. If violations of libel, obscenity, unwarranted invasion of privacy, copyright infringement or material disruption of the school process are likely at stake, the adviser urges students to get advice of the Student Press Law Center or reliable legal resource. Not just any school lawyer or administrator will do. The resource, which could include non-live information, must be reputable for scholastic media. The phrase “unprotected speech” might not be enough because Hazelwood so muddied the concept.
5. If the disagreement is not over a legal consideration, the adviser urges students to consider the “red light” or similar questions raised by The Poynter Institute to see how various stakeholders might react if the material is published. Students see and consider the possible outcomes of publication and discuss with the adviser ramifications of their actions.
6. Adviser and students continue to discuss and explore alternative approaches until they reach a point of no possible agreement.
7. This process fulfills the adviser’s commitment to advise, not to make or require decisions, and to be cognizant of his/her responsibilities to school and students.
The Journalism Education Association reiterates its position that prior review and prior restraint violate its Adviser Code of Ethics and educational philosophy.
Additional links and resources:
• 10 Tips for Covering Controversial Subjects from the press rights commission website
• Questions advisers should ask those who want to implement prior review from commission blog
• JEA’s Adviser Code of Ethics from the commission blog. Scroll to the bottom
• JEA’s statement on prior review from the JEA website
• Results of a Master’s study on prior review and publication awards from the commission’s website
• Resources from the press rights commission on developing professional standards from press rights website
• NSPA Model Code of Ethics for student journalists from NSPA’s website
Read MoreSPLC addresses JEA’s prior review, restraint definitions
The Student Press Law Center, in its May 4 blog, put JEA’s newly adopted definitions of prior review and prior restraint into legal and educational perspective.
“If a school official insists on reading a student publication ahead of time, they will eventually try to censor it,” SPLC consultant Mike Hiestand wrote. “I would like someone to prove me wrong on this, but I’ve never seen an established system of prior review that has ever remained a pure “reading only” practice.”
In its newly adopted guidelines, JEA created the following definitions:
• Prior review occurs when anyone not on the publication/media staff requires that he or she be allowed to read, view or approve student material before distribution, airing or publication.
• Prior restraint occurs when someone not on the publication/media staff requires pre-distribution changes to or removal of student media content.
“In the real world …” Hiestand wrote, “experienced, trained advisers that work closely with their students, offering suggestions for improvement — often after reading the content ahead of time — can be a valuable and welcome resource, something the JEA recognizes in excluding such ‘advising’ from its definition of prior review. But even advisers, the definitions recognize, can go too far, and ‘when an adviser requires pre-distribution changes over the objections of student editors,’ the definition states, ‘his/her actions then become prior restraint.'”
Check jeasprc.org soon for recommendations on how advisers can assist students without making decisions for them or requiring them to make changes they don’t want to make.
Read MoreFight for the Right to Write!
Puyallup, Wash. – About 50 interested, supportive people joined together on a blustery Monday evening at the Puyallup Public Library to hear the editors of the three local high school newspapers share their plans for fighting the current student expression policies and regulations in the Puyallup School District.
Dozens of students and local citizens gathered to hear the plan in Puyallup to Fight for the Right to Write!
During the forum, Student Press Law Center attorney Mike Hiestand joined the group via Skype to answer questions and give the group some perspective on the policies and their impact in Puyallup.
Puyallup High School’s Viking Vanguard Editor-in-Chief Rebecca Harris opened the session by reviewing the group’s mission, petition statement and overview of what the student editors game plan is for the next several weeks. The group’s mission is: “To advocate for the rights of student journalists in the Puyallup School District. We aim to work with the school board to repeal Policy 3220 and Regulation 3220R and institute a new policy and regulation that ensures responsible journalism without prior review and prior restraint.”
The group asked that each person in attendance sign their petition and encourage their friends, family and fellow concerned citizens to sign the online petition following tonight’s meeting. The petition reads: “We support the Puyallup School District working in collaboration with students to institute a publications policy that will ensure responsible journalism without including prior review. We are committed to a process that will ensure the continuation of Puyallup’s outstanding journalist achievement while maintaining Puyallup’s long tradition of leadership in student First Amendment rights.”
Here’s how to contact the student editors and the leaders of Fight for the Right to Write:
email – fightfortherighttowrite@gmail.com
Web – www.fightfortherighttowrite.com
Facebook – search for Fight for the Right to Write
Twitter – search for The Right to Write
Read MoreMeet the Press Rights student partners
Thanks to JEA member Bryan Farley, you can see the kick-off of the Scholastic Press Rights Commission Student Partners project. His blog, “More Than Kids: Understanding People Through Photography,” includes links to photos of the group’s booth at the Portland convention.
Three of the high school students able to attend the convention were Ted Noelker (Central Focus, managing editor of multimedia) of Francis Howell Central High School, St. Charles, Mo.; Zoe Newcomb (The Broadview, news editor) of Convent of the Sacred Heart High School, San Francisco; and Meghan Morris (The Spoke, assistant managing editor) of Conestoga High School, Berwyn, Pa.
These three spent time at the booth, talking to other students and letting them know about their 45words initiative, which is designed to support their peers when it comes to First Amendment issues. They also promoted their Editor’s Emergency Toolkit.
Other student partners are Morgan Brewster (The Mustang Express, multimedia editor) of Sunrise Mountain High School in Peoria, Ariz.; Christopher Kim (The Tiger Times and Kaleidoscope, copy editor) of Seoul International School, Seoul, Korea; Zachary Knudson (The Crier, managing editor) from St. Francis (Minn.) High School; Sara Rogers (The Hi-Lite, cover story editor) from Carmel (Ind.) High School; and Joseph Weber (The Kirkwood Call, features writer) Kirkwood (Mo.) High School.
Already members of the group have reached out to students at schools facing censorship and prior review situations, offering support and suggestions. They plan to host a booth at the JEA/NSPA Kansas City convention in November. In the meantime, follow them on Twitter or Facebook.
Also enjoy Farley’s blog post about the First Amendment. I don’t know how he does it, but he does. (And you’ll have to read the blog to understand what that means….)