There’s a reason we need to
‘be bold and stand firm’
by Stan Zoller
The 18-word Tweet said it all.
“This attack on freedom of speech and freedom of press must not be tolerated. Be bold. Stand firm.”
And so it is, another militant organization seeks to spew its venom on innocent people because of ideological differences. This one goes far beyond the offices of Charlie Hebdo. Where this one hits home for all of us is that we have the opportunity practice what we teach – freedom of the press.
It’s a good time to take a step back and reflect on the times an administrator has subjected us to prior review or prior restraint for seemingly unsubstantiated reasons, except for the fact that they disagree, or they fear higher level authorities.
Yes, it’s annoying and yes it challenges the very fabric of what most journalism educators teach. Many, so it seems, go with the flow out of fear for their jobs.
As you watch the coverage of the massacre in Paris you may come to the realization that in the scope of things, we have it easy.
We can establish a dialogue with stakeholders in our student media to argue and maybe even resolve our differences without fearing for our lives.
Ten staff members of Charlie Hebdo who dared to have an opinion and two police officers who dared to do their job didn’t have the same luck.
It might be a good time for journalism educators, especially those at the high school level, to take a break for social media, story planning and – yikes – even deadlines, to spend a class or two looking at journalists who died simply because they were journalists – simply because they sought the truth – simply because they wanted transparency.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 61 journalists were killed last year. Since 1992, the CPJ reports that 1,101 journalists have been killed. Some were killed covering war zones, others because they were journalists.
All because they were practicing freedom of the press.
And so it bears repeating: “This attack on freedom of speech and freedom of press must not be tolerated. Be bold. Stand firm.”
And consider yourself fortunate.
Read MoreWorking together can make a difference
by Stan Zoller, MJE
Maybe we should take a cue from our brethren in sports.
Let’s win one for the Gipper.
All for one and one for all.
“Individual commitment to a group effort – that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.” – Vince Lombardi
As journalism educators, we strive for excellence in our individual programs and thrive on the recognition we get when our students excel. We also appreciate the recognition for our own professional efforts.
But when programs come under fire – whether it’s censorship, prior review, prior restraint or whatever, there is strength in numbers. If you are in a multi-school district, make sure the student media advisers get together on a regular basis during the school year to discuss how things are going – and not just bemoaning the fact that deadlines are not being met.
I heard about a district where there was an edict handed down to yearbooks that not all of the yearbook advisers knew about it. It turns out it was focused on one yearbook, and not the others in the district. Interestingly enough, the discussion about covering non-school sponsored teams did not, so I was told, apply to newspapers because “they’re different.”
It’s essential to make sure decisions regarding any student media are shared with all student media. If you are not in a multi-school district, trying connecting with other area advisers to see what issues, if any, they may be facing. Not sure which route to go? Take a look at the conference your athletic teams compete in and use that as a springboard for an advisers forum.
Make sure too that you include advisers with all levels of experience. Advisers with extensive tenure should not dominate because they’ve been teaching for decades. New advisers bring new ideas and the exchange among veterans and newbies can not only be invigorating, but helpful as well. Go beyond the “I” and make sure you incorporate plenty of “we” in your advisers group.
And as is the case with any team, a combination of rookies and veterans can really make things happen.
Read MoreIssues worth building lessons around
As we head into a break for the holidays, three issues and concepts stand out as worth some future consideration.
• The First Amendment: In the land of the free, why are schools afraid of freedom by Charles Haynes.
Written by this First Amendment advocate following the JEA/NSPA Washington, DC, convention, the column challenges us all to question administrator misuse of First Amendment. The article cites instances of prior review to limit discussion of ideas and groups and the elimination of some groups from school student media coverage while permitting others. The last time I checked, ordering blanket silence on some groups served no educational value or pedagogy. Haynes likened this process as a fear of freedom and questioned such philosophy as a misplaced attempt to either make schools safe. He also urged all journalism programs in schools subject to prior review – or restraint – to build a campaign to end it. You certainly would have a legion of supporters.
• The epic Rolling Stone gang-rape fallout – and how major publications get it wrong. This is only one of many resources on this coverage that violated one of journalism’s basic principles: verify your information and ensure your sources are credible. Citing the premonition “something just doesn’t feel right” about a story, author Terrence McCoy leads with the story of Richard Bradley feeling the gang rape reported in Rolling Stone did not happen. Bradley, it seems, had some experience with this kind of thing before. He once edited Stephen Glass, McCoy wrote.
In a rush to get a seemingly wonderful story into print, journalists will not verify a story or have the right sources. Because such incidents happen more than we would like to admit, we must stress scholastic reporters like others have to go beyond pre-existing bias or view and learn to apply skills of skeptical knowing or crap-detecting or just plan digging to every story, every day and across every platform. It’s an ongoing lesson never to be dropped from our curricula or from our practices.
• A toolkit by the solutions journalism network and Pulitzer Center. This material caught my eye because it focuses on something we do not do enough of: Perspective reporting and identifying sources who strive for solutions. Historians have long said those who don’t learn about an issue or concept as destined to repeat it. Is it because journalists don’t do enough follow-up reporting, add enough perspective and address solutions? This particular piece might be just the right tool at the right time to help us not only report but to keep solutions or alternatives in the public’s eye. It’s certainly worth our time to investigate the concept and give its points a shakedown cruise. Even if our students do not deal with international issues, the principles and concepts presented are worth localization. Introducing at the scholastic level just might help students, whether they become commercial journalists or not, begin to know we need to think in terms of solutions as much as issues identification.
Read MoreHow to handle the gun story
by Jane Blystone
Advisers who have asked how to localize stories about guns need look no further. The HiLite staff at Carmel High School (Ind.) show student journalists how to handle such a story package.
Adviser Jim Streisel shared “My HiLite students wanted to localize the issue of guns for our student readers by discussing the upcoming NRA convention in Indianapolis as well as recent legislation that now allows people to have guns on school property.”
Writer Christine Fernando’s story”Guns are the tool, not the evil” counterbalances Caitlin Muller’s “Guns are engineered for violence’ story.
There cover and two pages of the issue can be read here.
Read MoreApply now for national First Amendment award
by John Bowen
Applications are now available for this year’s First Amendment Press Freedom Award (FAPFA).
The scary truth about our own confidence
By Megan Fromm, CJE
With Halloween just days away, ghost hunters and spooky pranksters are out in full force. But for journalists, there’s still something scarier than a grim reaper or a bad Miley Cyrus costume: errors in fact.
Photo by Dawn Ellner, used with Creative Commons license.
And while fact-checking is a common and methodical way to ensure accuracy in reporting, experts are now pointing to a more personal attribute that often stands in the way of truth. Simply put, researchers have found that each of us has the propensity to be a “confident idiot,” meaning we often overestimate our expertise on any given subject.
Instead of admitting to our own ignorance, we can be duped into thinking we know things we don’t, or that we have knowledge that actually exceeds our current understanding of a topic or concept.
For many journalists, acknowledging this Achille’s heal is an important step in becoming adept, truth-seeking reporters—when we stop assuming we know so much, we start looking for better and more specific information. After all, what good is a five-step fact-checking process if we’re unlikely to believe we could get something wrong in the first place?
Named the “Dunning-Kruger effect,” this common inability for humans to recognize our own ineptitude has serious implications for journalists and for news media consumers.
As a journalist, understanding this phenomenon means that I will be slightly more skeptical of how “authoritative” my sources seems. It means that I’ll delve more critically into their own claims of fact and be sure to investigate my source’s background to determine his/her real level of expertise.
For student journalists, this is especially vital. How many times have students overstated knowledge of a certain event or situation? Our students want to trust their peers, and their peers are likely to exaggerate connections. Knowing this, and taking steps to mitigate it, keeps journalistic integrity intact.
[pullquote]Ask your student journalists to brainstorm a list of “experts” on different topics at your school. Then, compile a master list, “vetting” those experts by getting as much background information as possible.[/pullquote]
As news and media consumers, we must first acknowledge our own propensity to be “confident idiots.” (Here’s a touch of irony: I even vastly overestimated my ability to write this post in the time I had allotted myself. Turns out the researchers were right!).
This means I should be willing to evaluate my own knowledge base before assuming others are (or are not) experts. I might ask myself what experience or education is most relevant to the news and information I receive, and I would try to be honest about my personal deficits, filling in the gaps as necessary.
While it’s scary to think we might be so out of touch with our own intelligence, a little due diligence (and sometimes a light-hearted reality check) can go a long way.
Read More