Do we have the right to erase the past?
The take-down conundrum leads to debate
by Lindsay Coppens, Adviser of The Harbinger, Algonquin Regional High School, Northborough, MA
Should what is posted about us (comments, articles, photos, videos) online be under our control? Should what we publish or submit for publication online be under our control despite who owns and controls the website? Do people have the right to demand content be taken down?
Overview
Online publications, both professional and scholastic, inevitably face take-down requests, which can range from polite inquiries to angry demands. Since going online four years ago, our high school news publication has had two take-down requests: one from the subject of an article and the other from a former staff writer who wanted an opinion piece removed. Both had graduated a few years prior and had different reasons for their requests.
The first wanted a news article removed because she now identified as a different gender than she did while the focus of article. The article had nothing to do with the subject’s gender identity—the student had spearheaded a school-wide recycling program that is still in place years later.
In the other case, the former staff member requested his column be removed because he had since changed his opinion. The piece was not on a controversial topic and did not take a particularly unusual stance: he argued that students’ placement in courses they request should be based on merit, not seniority.
Luckily before any request happened the staff already had a policy in place. This policy in the staff manual, however, was not their automatic answer to the requests. But it was a jumping off point for discussion and, in one case, an intense debate among the almost 20 person editorial board.
[pullquote]“The Harbinger does not grant take-down requests of published material, whether the request is from the subject of an article, a former staff member, or some other entity. If a story is inaccurate, the editors will look into the matter and, if needed, publish a correction or update in the form of an editor’s note.”[/pullquote]
The policy also ultimately gave the editorial board the confidence and support to hold strong to their decision.
Policy
The policy in the corrections section of the staff manual reads: “The Harbinger does not grant take-down requests of published material, whether the request is from the subject of an article, a former staff member, or some other entity. If a story is inaccurate, the editors will look into the matter and, if needed, publish a correction or update in the form of an editor’s note.”
Application
In each situation, the board gathered to discuss the request. In the first case (from the subject of the recycling article) the board quickly agreed not to take down the article. However, they decided to amend the piece, editing it to change the subject’s first name and pronoun to correlate with how she now identifies. They decided not to emphasize the changes in an editorial note because they thought they did not change the meaning or substance of the article, and more importantly they did not want to further draw attention to the shifting of the subject’s gender. She was satisfied with the edits and decision.
The request from the former staff member was trickier. While only a few of the editors were vaguely familiar with the writer because he graduated a few years earlier, they were initially divided in their responses to the request. Some immediately thought, “Why not? It’s his article; if he wants it removed, remove it.”
Then others brought up the point could a take-down set precedent, and would they remove any article, opinion, or review just because the writer no longer wanted it up?
Even though it’s not a news article, does his column mark a concern that was held by some at the point in time it was written (they said yes), and was it, in a way, part of the record of what happened and what was debated in our school? Does it matter that if it only was published in print, it couldn’t be expunged?
Others asserted that, in a way, print eventually disappears (except for when people hoard old papers) and something online potentially lasts and could easily be found forever.
Back and forth they discussed how years from now they, too, may be embarrassed by what they thought and wrote in high school, while others said, “Yeah, but you and others would also realize you were in high school.” They debated how former staff members could potentially be impacted when looking for jobs or simply if someone googles them.
Others laughed that maybe that gave yet another reason that they should step up their writing game. They discussed who “owns” any work created, submitted, and published by staff members (they agreed, and our editorial policy states, that the publication does).
Exasperated, at least one editor said mid-debate, “Does this really actually matter?” To which the rest resoundingly said, “Yes!”
All of this discussion resulted from a column that until that day none of them knew even existed, buried more than two years deep in the online archives. They all agreed in wondering why the heck this writer really wanted the piece taken down, and ultimately, after this rich debate about ethics, ownership, and control, they decided not to take down the piece.
[pullquote]Exasperated, at least one editor said mid-debate, “Does this really actually matter?” To which the rest resoundingly said, “Yes!”[/pullquote]
They did make two suggestions to the former staff member: he could post a comment in response to the piece explaining his change of mind, or he could submit a statement of similar effect that would run with the column as an author’s note.
He was frustrated with the decision, and actually begged again to have the seemingly innocuous column removed, but the Editor in Chief kindly but firmly replied that the publication’s policy was to not honor take-down requests.
Ultimately, he submitted an author’s note: a long statement of apology for his previous opinion and thanks to the guidance department for their help while he was in high school.
Maybe he’s hoping to come back to his alma mater as a guidance intern, or maybe some college friend read it and gave him a hard time about complaining about his high school course schedule. I’ll likely never know, but I do know from analytics that only a handful of people have read that column.
I also know that his take-down request led to an invigorating editorial board debate which helped to reinforce their sense of purpose and clarify why they do what they do.
Final point
Words do have power, as do the scholastic publications that publish those words. The students who run those publications have the power and responsibility to set policy, debate policy, and ultimately make their own decisions as a team.
They and the publication will be stronger for the experience.
Read MoreA presidential tweet that can hit home
by Stan Zoller, MJE
It was, for all practical purposes, just another tweet from the commander in chief. “…Maybe the best thing to do would be to cancel all future “press briefings” and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???”
At face value you can say ‘well, it’s just Trump being Trump.”
But what if you got the same message from your principal?
You’d be outraged. You’d post on the Listserv. You’d post on social media. You’d (hopefully) contact the Scholastic Press Rights Committee.
And you would be right.
The latest onslaught on the media by the President Trump and the gang of henchmen and henchwomen who issue statements is the same sentiment often heard from district or building administrators – student media can say what it wants as long as its “accurate” – accurate, of course, being a synonymous with printing or posting only the information provided by the administration that makes it look good.
Before you start citing the First Amendment, take a moment to break down Trump’s post.
[pullquote]The latest onslaught on the media by the President Trump and the gang of henchmen and henchwomen who issue statements is the same sentiment often heard from district or building administrators – student media can say what it wants as long as its “accurate” – accurate, of course, being a synonymous with printing or posting only the information provided by the administration that makes it look good.[/pullquote]
First, take a look at Trump’s first idea — cancel all future “press briefings” – It’s reprehensible for any public official, let alone the POTUS, to practice a lack of public access and transparency, which is what the Trump administration wants to do. Journalism educators can use this as the proverbial teaching moment – but not on a global level – on a local level.
If a superintendent, principal or any other school official were to tell student media they were not going to disseminate any information, odds are likely advisers and their student journalists would, and justifiably so, be upset. The challenge for student journalists is to access the information. Using public access tools like sunshine laws and Freedom of Information laws is a great place to start. Administrators at public schools have a legal, if not a fiduciary responsibility to provide all public information to the media – including student media. Students and advisers need to be up to date on their state’s open meetings and FOI laws. They should also have resources of citizen watchdog groups that can assist them.
Taking a further look at the Twitter-in-Chief’s tweet, his solution is to “…hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy…”
Seriously? On a global stage it makes no sense. It’s condescending. On a local stage it not only lacks sense and is condescending – it’s offensive to not only the student journalists, but also student media advisers. It’s offensive to student journalists because it says school officials lack trust in them as not just student journalists, but journalists.
The message it sends to advisers is that they are not working with their students on the fundamentals of journalism, including fact checking and use of multiple sources. Advisers and students should have a litany of resources including fact-checking and news literacy sites. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press at RCFP.org, Politi.com, FactCheck.org and the News Literacy Project at thenewsliteracyproject.org, and the American Press Institute (americanpressinstitute.org) are great places to start.
Advisers and student journalists should also be current on the status of New Voices Legislation – especially if their state has a Speech/Press Rights bill on the books. Full information is available at newvoices.com or on the New Voices Facebook page.
Knowing the law can re-enforce your right, let alone the public’s right, to know. In Illinois, for example, recently passed legislation allows administrators to bar content only if “… (1) is libelous, slanderous, or obscene; (2) constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy; (3) violates federal or State law; or (4) incites students to commit an unlawful act, to violate policies of the school district, or to materially and substantially disrupt the orderly operation of the school.
This raises the bar for student journalists to do not only their best work, but practice unrestricted and responsible journalism.
This is something that is to be expected.
By administrators.
By advisers.
By student journalists.
And you’d think by the President of the United States.
Read MoreQuick Tips…because you asked
by John Bowen
Because of questions asked on JEA’s listserv this week, the Scholastic Press Rights Committee reposts information and guidelines from earlier content ownership and takedown guidelines.
To repost links to these materials, we will use a new format, Quick Tips, designed to respond to questions, offer suggestions and provide resources so advisers and students can make informed decisions.
Rather than term these approaches as policy suggestions, we like to refer to them as guidelines for ethical decision making and procedures to apply the ethical process.
Here are Quick Tips responses to concerns about ownership of student media content and takedown demands.
Quick Tips: Content ownership
Question: Who owns the content of student media and why should this be a concern?
Key points/action: Advisers asked several questions this week about who should own content of student media, what the possibilities were and what steps are involved in the decision-making process.
Stancec:Deciding who owns content of student media should be an important decisions for all platforms and programs. Contained within that decision are implications for the forum concept, how content can be used and by whom and on takedown demands.
Reasoning/suggestions: Students, with input from advisers, should pick a solution that best fits their situation. The choices are students own rights to content with granting access to student media for its use or student media owns the content with access rights to students.
For multiple reasons it is not a good idea to have the school own student media content.
Resource: Who owns student-produced content?
Quick Hits: Takedown demands
Question: When and why should student media take down content, in print or online?
Key points/action: 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: Policies are not meant to be easily changeable as are journalistic tools and process. Guidelines give flexibility for changing conditions and room for students to make ethical decisions.
Resources: Takedown demands? A roadmap of choices
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 MoreFive ways we can help you
by Lori Keekley
May 1, Loyalty Day. Too-many-days-left-to-count-down-the-end-of-the-school-year day …
No matter what it is, here are five ways JEA’s SPRC can help you (and your students) now.
1. We’re here for you. Whether it’s to study for an upcoming CJE or MJE exam or to help research in a case of censorship, we work to help you and your students.
2. We’re here for your students. If they (or you) find you are in a situation of need, please hit the Panic Button. Someone will answer your request within 24 hours. (It’s usually as soon as we see the email.)
3. Planning for next year? The Foundations Package is a great place to start. This resource helps by providing some starting points for creating a staff manual that includes a media- or board-level policy, ethical guidelines and procedures.
4. It’s never too early to start thinking about Constitution Day. We will release new materials Aug. 20 to help you celebrate this federally mandated event.
5. We will continue to support the First Amendment and its application in schools through our support of New Voices campaigns, First Amendment Press Freedom Award and the passage for board statements.
Please let us know if you need something or think of another way we can help you. We are happy to help
Read MoreLoyalty Day is May 1.
Let’s reaffirm OUR principles
by John Bowen
Loyalty Day is Monday, May 1.
First observed in 1921 because of threats from subversive influence, it has been a legally designated holiday since 1958 and observed by every president since then, reports Esquire.
President Donald Trump said its purpose, according to Mic, was to protect against those who would do the United States harm, and according to Fox News, “to recognize and reaffirm our allegiance to the principles” that are America’s heritage..
For journalists, groups that do harm might include:
• Those who perpetuate fake news
• Those who lie to newsmedia and to the public
• Those who interfere with the news media’s quest for truthful, accurate and thorough reporting
• Those who would censor journalists, at any level, and thus misinform or disinform citizens’ rights to know
Journalists are not enemies of the state. Not May 1 or any of 364 other days.
Read More