Opening (or closing) Pandora’s Box
Why online comment and discussion policies are integral
By Megan Fromm
Last month, Popular Science, an online news magazine dedicated to all things techie, scientific, and often futuristic, decided it was closing the comments section for new online articles.
Staff members argued that in some cases, comments were bad for science, especially when the nature of online reader responses keeps writers from “fostering lively, intellectual debate …[and] spreading the word of science far and wide.”
Not surprisingly, the magazine relied on empirical research that shows just how poorly an influencer public opinion can really be when it comes to science, and they defended their position succinctly:
“If you carry out those results [of the studies] to their logical end–commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded–you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the “off” switch.” –Popular Science
Comment sections can be a tremendous boon for online news media. They allow readers to interact with staffers, critique news coverage, correct errors, or even offer interesting story ideas. In a perfect world, an online comment or discussions board (whether for each article or for the site as a whole) would help your news organization develop a strong rapport within your scholastic community.
As online media strives to create spaces for significant interaction between those writing the news and those responding to it, long-term consideration must be given to how those interactions are shaped, facilitated and moderated.
Just as newspapers have staff policies for readers who want to submit letters to the editor, online news media should also have clear and accessible guidelines regarding their comments and discussion sections. These policies might include guidance on the following:
- The intended purpose of your comments/discussion section.
- Whether comments on your site are moderated, and why.
- If so, who monitors what gets posted?
- Whether readers must provide identifying information before they can comment.
- What types of language/content is not acceptable?
- How can readers flag responses for moderator review or to be taken down?
- Will the website take down comments, and for what reasons?
- Can readers expect the writers of the story to respond to reader comments?
These are just a few questions that should be considered when using reader comments to facilitate interaction on your website. And while Popular Science may have decided that comments weren’t the right approach for their website, consider how encouraging civil reader feedback from your community could build trust and encourage consistent relationships with the very people you cover most in your scholastic news media.
Read More
Encouraging diversity in new staff selection
by Megan Fromm
For most publications staffs around the country, the post-spring-break season is officially new staff recruitment time—the chance to build the ideal team for next school year. Applications start rolling in, would-be editors wait anxiously for their new assignments and advisers endure the emotional rollercoaster of deciding who belongs where and why.
Typically, requirements such as editing skills, leadership potential, design ability and time commitments take precedence when selecting a new staff. But what about ideology? What about personal perspectives or cultural understandings? Building the right publications team demands a deep understanding not only of your students technical skills, but also of their personalities, dispositions and background.
Advocating for diversity among your staff members is not just the politically correct thing to do—it should be an ethical imperative. When your staffers’ family background, religious ideologies or cultural upbringing reflect a range of experiences, your publication is more likely to exhibit that same diversity.
If you haven’t yet considered how diversity plays a part in your staff-building process, consider taking a survey of your current students and potential staffers or making a diversity reflection part of your application requirement. The point is not to force students to answer questions about politics or religion or race, but rather to encourage them to open up about personal perspectives that demonstrate and celebrate their own uniqueness.
Ask questions like:
- What is most important to you outside school?
- What cliques or stereotypes do you feel you most relate to? Which ones least define you? Why?
- What are you doing (or where are you physically) when you feel most “yourself?”
- Where (or to whom) do you go for inspiration?
If all the responses sound eerily similar, you might want to rethink your recruitment strategies or the students you target for your publications programs. On the other hand, if the reflections show a range of distinct answers, consider how those students might help encourage the same diversity in coverage by being a part of your publication.
Be sure you give students a chance to authorize your “release” of this information to returning staff members who might be helping in the recruitment/selection process. And, when your staff is finally complete, encourage members to share these reflections during team-building.
Read More
Ethics by any other name: Why process is more important than verbiage
By Megan Fromm
This weekend, I had the pleasure of joining some of the greatest thinkers and doers in scholastic journalism at Kent State University to revise and update Quill & Scroll’s Principal’s Guide to Scholastic Journalism.
For two intense days, we sat roundtable and edited—line by line, word by word— the entire publication.
During the course of our work session, we often discussed the merits of certain ethical tenets, namely, “fair,” “balanced” and “objective.” Despite our collective and individual commitments to ethical and legal scholastic journalism, we could not reach a consensus about which tenets were more authentic, let alone how to interpret each of them.
Through a bit of lively, respectful debate, I learned that even those teachers, professors and journalism professionals whom I respect most have different beliefs about what makes ethical journalism.
I was adamant that the term “fair” gets a bad rap and covers a host of sins that “balanced” and “objective” often overlook. Others, preferring the latter terms to describe their ethical approach, thought the term “fair” was loaded because—after all—what could be fair to everyone?
After some reflection, I realized we were all talking about the same process, the same methodical and careful approach a journalist takes to ensure the very best, most accurate, inclusive and contextual content.
Ethics, then, is not as much a moving target as today’s media pundits might have us believe. Quite simply, ethics is a conscious effort, above all other motives, to do the right thing for our readers, subjects and the public’s right to know.
As the spring semester unravels with full force and obligations such as state testing commence, it can be easy to compromise the ethical process for the sake of timeliness and self-preservation.
When it’s crunch time, it is easy to think you are satisfying the ethical tenets of your news organization (whatever they may be) without actually adhering to the process that makes ethical journalism flourish.
Instead of bearing lip service to those core beliefs, take some time this month to step back, discuss your publication’s ethical process and evaluate your work thus far. Where can your students do better? How can they be a little more careful? A little more accurate? A little more thorough? Understanding how they make ethical decisions is the only way for students to value the end result, no matter what you call it.
Read More