General resources for Policy and Ethics
in Student Media
Resources listed here can provide additional information for ethics and staff manual development, as well as assistance for your journalism students and program.
Organizations
American Society of News Editors
Columbia Scholastic Press Association
Journalism Education Association
—Scholastic Press Rights Committee
National Association of Broadcasters
National Press Photographer’s Association
National Scholastic Press Association
Radio Television Digital News Association
Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press
Society of Professional Journalists
Publications/Media
Principals Guide to Scholastic Journalism
Press Rights Minute, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission
Individuals
Ethics Codes
Articles and materials
Yearbook Ethical Guidelines, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission
Students, the First Amendment and the Supreme Court, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission
Fighting FERPA With Facts, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission
Foundations for Scholastic Journalism, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission
Return to sitemap.
Read More
Questions about public forum status
When your publication is a public forum
and when it is not
by Mark Goodman, Professor and Knight Chair in Scholastic Journalism, Kent State University
School officials’ ability to legally censor school-sponsored student expression at public junior high and high schools is determined by whether they can meet the burden the First Amendment places on them to justify their actions. Often the most important question in that analysis is which of two First Amendment standards they have to meet.
- The Tinker standard (as defined by the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)), which says schools can censor only if their actions are necessary to avoid a material and substantial disruption of school activities or an invasion of the rights of others. This language may sound vague, but as the courts have interpreted it, the Tinker standard is a very difficult one for school officials to meet and typically requires them to show evidence of physical disruption before their censorship will be allowed.
- The Hazelwood standard (as defined by the case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)), which says schools can censor if their actions are reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns. Although this standard requires school officials to justify every act of censorship as educationally sound, it is a standard that gives school officials more extensive authority to silence or punish student expression.
How do you determine which standard applies? Forum status.
The Supreme Court made clear that the standard it created in the Hazelwood case did not automatically apply to every school-sponsored student publication. Rather, to determine which standard applied to a particular act of censorship of a student publication, a court must first ask this question:
Has the publication, by either school policy or practice, been opened as a designated public forum for student expression?
Even curricular, school-sponsored student publications may still be entitled to strong First Amendment protection and exempt from Hazelwood’s limitations if they have been designated a “public forum” for student expression.
[pullquote]The Supreme Court made clear that the standard it created in the Hazelwood case did not automatically apply to every school-sponsored student publication. Rather, to determine which standard applied to a particular act of censorship of a student publication, a court must first ask this question:
Has the publication, by either school policy or practice, been opened as a designated public forum for student expression?[/pullquote]
How do you determine public forum status?
A public forum is created when school officials have “by policy or by practice” opened a publication for use by students to engage in their own free expression.
In the Hazelwood case, the Court said that it believed that both the policy and practice at Hazelwood East High School reflected school officials’ intent to exercise complete control over the student newspaper’s content. That finding prompted the Court to say a designated public forum did not exist. Nevertheless, student publications at other schools with different policies and different practices relating to editorial control can be public forums. Where student editors have been given final authority over content decisions in their publications or where a school policy explicitly describes a student publication as a designated public forum, the Tinker standard will still apply.
At schools where student editors are given the authority to make final decisions about what will be included in their publication or where a school policy reflects an intent to give students that authority, public forum status will still be found and schools will have to meet the Tinker standard before they can legally censor.
Is your publication a designated public forum?
In the post-Hazelwood world, it is more important than ever that student journalists and their advisers know what policies their school has adopted relating to student publications or student expression. The language of those polices (whether they give editorial control to students or keep it in the hands of school officials) and the amount of freedom that students have traditionally operated under at the school can determine whether Hazelwood or Tinker sets the standard for what school officials will be allowed to censor.
[pullquote]If you’re developing a new policy, the Scholastic Press Rights Committee recommends using language that reads something like this:
[Name of publication] is a designated public forum for student expression. Student editors make all content decisions without prior review from school officials. [/pullquote]
Two things are important about the phrasing of this policy statement. First is the use of the words “designated public forum” as opposed to “limited public forum” or other similar language. Although many once believed the two phrases were interchangeable, some recent court decisions have suggested that using the word “limited” opens the door to school censorship as permitted under Hazelwood.
Second, using the phrase “student editors make all content decisions” is in many ways a clearer restatement of the meaning of “designated public forum.” It conveys the intent behind the public forum phrase that anyone unfamiliar with the relevant Supreme Court rulings should understand.
Return to sitemap.
Read MoreEvaluating and critiquing content
Ethical guidelines
Students should engage in a consistent and ongoing process to evaluate content of their student media. Open, constructive, robust and healthy newsroom dialogue plays a vital role in a publication’s ongoing development. Evaluating and critiquing content helps students to reflect on the process and outcome and allows them to identify areas for improvement. Such reflection is also critical to the overall learning process and mastery of journalistic skills.
Staff manual process
Students should build an evaluation process into the publication cycle. The process should reflect regular input from all segments of the publication’s audience, continually taking into account who is underserved. Students should consider coverage in terms of who was affected by it, outcomes and lessons learned. This process should also include a brainstorming session that considers how to apply these lessons in the future.
Suggestions
Student editors should lead the evaluation process, seeking feedback from all media staff members. Questions to consider during this process could include:
- How are sources depicted? Are they quoted accurately and fairly? Are they depicted without bias? Do they authentically represent the audience?
- Does coverage include anything that wasn’t really there?
- Does coverage deceive the audience in any way?
- Does coverage reflect any stereotypes? Does it make assumptions?
- Does coverage reflect transparency about reporting methods and motives?
- What is missing from the coverage? Is any follow-up necessary? If so, what will that look like?
- Does coverage reflect humility and honesty about the limits of knowledge?
Resources
Lesson: News Literacy and the Publication Staff, Journalism Education Association
Audio: Evaluating And Critiquing Content, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission, Press Rights Minute
Return to sitemap.
Read MoreCorrecting errors
Ethical guidelines
Mistakes happen. What matters is how student journalists handle such situations. Student editors should correct errors as quickly and visibly as possible. Sometimes this means correcting a print error on a website and then following up in the next issue.
Staff manual process
When a reader or viewer has identified an error, students should check first to see whether the information truly is erroneous. In addressing the mistake, the correction should identify the error, provide the correct information, explain how the error was made and detail what will be done to prevent future errors.
Transparency about what went wrong will help to restore credibility after a mistake is made. Students should know when to make corrections and when (if ever) to remove online stories entirely.
Suggestions
• In addition to printing a correction, student editors should reflect on the writing, editing and post-production process that allowed the error to occur. What should change to keep this from happening again?
• A news website should include a logical mechanism so readers can report errors or inaccurate information. If this generates an email to a shared account, students should have a system in place for checking the account regularly.
• Students should have a system in place for fact-checking reported errors, rather than taking someone’s word at face value.
• Students should create a designated fact-checker position on staff, or rotate students through the position for each publication cycle.
• When students determine an online correction is necessary, they should update the information accordingly and add an editor’s note, preferably at the beginning of the article, about when and why the correction was made. This act of transparency holds students accountable and provides readers with as much information as possible, rather than hiding the original error.
• Students should develop specific guidelines for correcting misinformation that appears in the publication’s social media accounts.
• Student editors should have a system in place for the rare online mistake they deem significant and serious enough to warrant immediate removal of content. For example, editors may choose to remove a story and issue a statement about why they took that action.
Resources
Why Journalists Make Mistakes & What We Can Do About Them, The Poynter Institute
Made a Mistake? Advice for Journalists On Online Correction, The Poynter Institute
To Err is Human, to Correct Divine, American Journalism Review
Correction Strategies: 6 Good Questions With Regret the Error’s Craig Silverman, American Press Institute
Audio: Correcting Errors, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee, Press Rights Minute
Return to sitemap.
Read MoreTakedown requests
Ethical guidelines
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.
Staff manual process
Content should not be removed unless the student editorial board determines it is factually inaccurate or was otherwise factually, legally deficient at the time of publication. The staff manual should provide a checklist or guide students can use to determine whether a takedown request has merit.
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.
Resources
Takedown Demands: Here is a Roadmap of Choices, Rationale, JEA 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 Pointer Institute
Return to sitemap.
Read More