Can the Elements of Journalism help replace prior review?
As we’ve tried to emphasize in the last several posts, prior review is not a valid or workable educational practice. It betrays the trust of the audience (as well as that of student journalists and their advisers) and negates any concept of students taking responsibility for what they write.
Let’s see if we can build some common ground to lessen the need for prior review, which we have seen lately undermines the whole educational process.
Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel call this approach the science of reporting.
Together, these points, say the authors, lead to the discipline of verification, meaning published material is accurate, truthful and in context.
Paired with responsible journalism, as defined by JEA and outlined in an earlier post, Kovach and Rosenstiel’s verification of information and science of reporting provide a framework for scholastic journalism without prior review.
Given the outrageous examples of recent prior review, isn’t it time to give student journalists a chance to prove good journalism can and will occur without review?
In their book, The Elements of Journalism, they outline five points for this concept:
• Never add anything that was not there: This requires solid reporting and a variety of credible sources.
• Never deceive the audience: This requires building a framework of trust with your audiences and ties to the next point.
• Be as transparent as possible about methods and motive: It allows the audience to judge the validity of the information, the process by which it was gathered and the motives and biases of the journalists providing it, the authors say.
• Rely on your own original reporting: Reporters who can do their own work, with encouragement and support from school officials and advisers will produce stronger, more complete reporting. This might even mean turning off the Internet filters so they can have unfiltered access to information and sources.
• Exercise humility: Journalists should be humble about their own skills as well as what they see and hear from sources. This reinforces the need to know perspective on stories as well as being open-minded to story-changing resources.
Recent examples of prior review leading to censorship clearly show we must find a way to encourage students practice what they are taught. We hope The Elements of Journalism can help pave the way.
Read MoreWhat Values? We ask again, and point to ethics lesson plans that could lead to answers
We continue to raise the question, borrowed partially from a recent ethics workshop at Kent State University: What Values?
What value is there in prior review by anyone outside the student media staff? Even if administrators can claim some sort of legal allowance stating they can, what are the ethical and educational values indicating they should? Who gains? Who is harmed? What elements of the school mission are fulfilled? How does the action serve truth and accuracy?
Along this line is a relatively new upshot on prior review (maybe not new, but certainly new to this timeframe): The superintendent as publisher; the principal as editor and the adviser as assistant adviser.
The students: certainly not getting a journalism education.
We would again ask: What is the educational value? How does this address the greater good? Who benefits? Who is harmed? What are students learning about the values of a school system that removes them from the process of critical thinking and decision making – and also puts their teacher and principal in legal harm’s way?
What values – educational or otherwise – are at play?
Speaking of What Values, those teachers interested in lesson plans to address journalism ethics and discussions on online ethics have a free source.
The plans are available for high schools to supplement Kent State-Poynter What Values? workshop Sept. 17. Download materials at the workshop site by scrolling down to the lesson plan button. You can also follow the discussions on online journalism ethics from the workshop.
Read MoreAvoiding Legal Problems, Step 1: Interview Notes Deadline
Student newspapers have two ways to avoid legal problems. Your students can never print anything controversial, creative or of interest to their readers, or you can teach your students how to write about controversy responsibly.
This responsibility begins long before the story is printed. Having your editors check the interview notes of the reporters can quickly reveal that the students haven’t talked to the all the right people to get a balanced story. It gives time to check out possible liability and to get permission to use quotes in place.
It also prevents procrastination, always a problem for all of us.
Students often only talk to their friends, or, worse yet, use the internet and don’t localize the story by talking to students, administrators or local sources. Brainstorming sources and questions can help get students off in the right directions.
Have your editors negotiate reasonable individual story deadlines for these notes and stick to them. Extending deadlines needs to be done ahead of time and in extreme cases only. If a student isn’t “dead” for missing a deadline, deadlines don’t mean a thing.
Interview skills are a sellable skill and one that journalism classes teach well. You might remind your administrators that, although they might prefer not to answer students’ questions about controversial topics, the students are really learning important skills that will help them in all sorts of situations throughout their lives.
Role playing interview situations with beginners can teach those skills and can be loads of fun as well.
Adding “interview notes” to the list of deadlines can help get things moving early and make sure that stories are well balanced and have the important information that will avoid legal problems when the story is published.
Fern Valentine, MJE