Letters and commentary can enhance pubic forum role QT40
Publishing letters to the editor is another way of fulfilling student media’s forum obligations to engage audiences through journalistic responsibility.
That said, students should establish clear criteria for identifying the authors, receiving and verifying the information. Such viewpoint neutral guidelines do not violate the author’s free expression rights.
Letters to the Editor are opportunities for your community to have a voice on the pages students host. They allow community members to interact with your staff and your readers by responding to stories students have written, topics covered, or issues in the school or their world concerning them.
Guideline:
Student media should accept letters to the editor or online comments from outside the staff to solidify their status as a designated public forum where students make all final decisions of content. This allows their audience to use their voices as well. Staff should reserve the right to ask the writer to edit for grammar, length and clarity instead of editing letters for them.
Stance:
Student media should welcome letters to the editor or commentaries as ways to engage your readers and diversify the published content.
Reasoning/suggestions:
Letters to the Editor are opportunities for your community to have a voice on the pages you host. They are usually 250 words or fewer and allow community members to interact with your staff and your readers by responding to stories you’ve written, topics you have covered, or issues in the school or their world that concern them.
Your guidelines should clearly spell out your process for accepting letters to the editor, and the editors still must maintain editorial control. Editorial control does not mean student editors do not publish something with which you disagree. In fact, students should use this opportunity to welcome differing viewpoints and voices. Making sure you have viewpoint-agnostic guidelines will help to ensure your staff makes well-informed ethical decisions regarding content.
Staff should reserve the right to ask the writer to edit for grammar, length and clarity instead of editing letters for them. Letting the authors make changes keeps the public forum status intact.
Other considerations:
- A student editor must know the name of the author, and verify the response, even if the letter is published “name withheld by request.” False names or nicknames should not be published.
- Each letter should be no longer than 250 words.
- The source of emailed letters should be verified prior to publication.
- Student staffs should strive to publish all letters received as part of the forum process.
- Student staffs should develop a policy concerning staff member comments or letters to the editor. Such staffers have other avenues to express their opinions in their media, and this is not a common practice for commercial media.
Resources:
Star Tribune’s editorial pages
Letters to the Editor Policies
Read More
Accepting guest commentaries
enhances forum role QT 39
Accepting guest commentaries, offered randomly, reinforces student media’s role as a public forum for student expression.
This would not include the creation of stranding guest columns for administrations, faculty or other school or city officials.
Students should develop guidelines for accepting guest commentaries following the same legal and ethical guides they follow.
Guideline:
Guest commentaries are accepted at the discretion of the editors provided the writer abides by the same legal and ethical guidelines as the staff, does not overuse the privilege and does not exceed 500 words. Guest commentaries should not be from publications staff. Students have the final say on which commentary they will accept.
Social media post/question: What do we say when someone wants to submit a guest commentary?
Stance: Guest commentaries show up in professional newspapers all the time, and they are a fantastic way to engage the community. You should welcome hosting guest commentaries on your pages with the caveat that the editors still get to maintain editorial control.
Reasoning/suggestions:
Guest commentaries are opportunities for your community to have a voice on the pages you host. They are usually done in an extended opinion form of between 250-500 words.
Your guidelines must clearly spell out your procedures for accepting guest commentaries, and the editors still must maintain editorial control. Editorial control does not mean only including opinions with which you agree. In fact, you should use this opportunity to welcome differing viewpoints and voices. Making sure you have viewpoint agnostic guidelines will help to ensure you maintain some control of your content.
Resources:
Star Tribune Commentary Guidelines
Read More
The importance of staff edits:
critical thinking, leadership QT 38
Student editors are busy. In addition to leading their staffs, making publication decisions and helping reporters, they are likely also still reporting and creating their own news content — not to mention carrying a full academic high school load.
Given all of these responsibilities, it’s easy to see why writing an unsigned staff editorial might seem a lower priority than getting the next edition to print or finishing that great feature on the new student body president.
But these editorials represent a unique and powerful opportunity for the board to be leaders in their school communities, and editors tempted to skip writing them should reconsider their priorities.
As overseers of all publication content, school news editors know more about what’s going on in their communities than just about anyone else in the school. As they read each article and listen with a journalist’s ear to what’s happening around them day-to-day, they can see patterns and problems most people cannot, adults included.
Coming together as a group, they can choose meaningful topics to address and think critically about what they want to say about those topics as a board. Once they reach a majority opinion on the topic, they can write collaboratively on a Google doc or take turns writing the first draft and then edit that draft into a clear, concise final piece.
Because staff editorials are unsigned, they carry more weight than a single writer’s opinion and may have greater impact. Well researched, authoritative editorials are powerful tools for change in a school community, and editorial boards should make them a priority.
Guideline:
Student journalists should act as candles lighting issues within their communities as well as mirrors reflecting current events. One way to enact this leadership is for the student editorial board to write regular unsigned editorials to advocate, solve a problem or commend. Editorial opinions should be clearly labeled and separate from the news section and should not affect objective news coverage.
Social Media Post
Does your student editorial board write regular unsigned editorials? If not, they are missing an opportunity to lead.
Reasoning/suggestions: Student media show leadership in many ways, and one of the most traditional is through concise, focused and authoritative statements of well-argued and supported opinion which represent the institutional voice of the student media. These editorials are a unique opportunity for student leaders to give voice to student perspectives on important topics. Editorial board members who take this process seriously and write consistently can advocate for change, serve as calls to action or commend positive conditions. Because staff editorials are unsigned, they carry more weight than a single writer’s opinion and may have greater impact.
Resources:
Quick Hit: Picking a topic for staff editorials, JEA Scholastic Press Committee
Quick Hit: Staff editorial process, JEA Scholastic Press Committee
“Mirror, mirror on the wall,” JEA Scholastic Press Committee
“Where have the leaders gone?” JEA Scholastic Press Committee
Editorials under attack, Student Press Law Center
Explained: why newspapers endorse presidential candidates, Dylan Baddour, Houston Chronicle
“They need the freedom to make mistakes, too,” Lindsay Coppens, JEA Press Rights Committee
Reading newspapers: Editorial and opinion pieces, Learn NC
Video: How to write an editorial, New York Times
Writing an Editorial, Alan Weintraut
Read More
Choosing topics for editorials QT37
The best and most effective staff editorials are those that tackle an important topic and then give audiences a reason and a way to address it.
Staff editorials should concern local or localized issues for the student body and/or school community. They may advocate, solve a problem or commend.
Guidelines
Staff editorials should concern local or localized issues for the student body and/or school community. They may advocate, solve a problem or commend.
Question: What are best practices in choosing staff editorial materials?
Key points/action: The best and most effective staff editorials are those that tackle an important topic and then give audiences a reason and a way to address it.
Stance: Develop criteria for choosing editorial topics that can include:
- A topic that can make a difference
- A topic for which there can be reliable and credible sources
- A topic audiences can address and create change
- A topic that has reported content to provide background
- A topic for which the reporter(s) can find first-hand information and sources
Reasoning/suggestions:
Remember, editorials are concise, supported and take a stand. Also to note: staff editorials are unsigned because they represent the entire publication or media.
Resources:
Quick Hit: Staff editorial process, JEA Scholastic Press Committee
Quick Hit: Importance of staff editorials, JEA Scholastic Press Committee
“Mirror, mirror on the wall,” JEA Scholastic Press Committee
“Where have the leaders gone?” JEA Scholastic Press Committee
Editorials under attack, Student Press Law Center
“They need the freedom to make mistakes, too,” Lindsay Coppens, JEA Press Rights Committee
Explained: why newspapers endorse presidential candidates, Dylan Baddour, Houston Chronicle
Reading newspapers: Editorial and opinion pieces, Learn NC
Video: How to write an editorial, New York Times
Writing an Editorial, Alan Weintraut
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 More
The perks of being a wallflower:
How a school district escaped a lawsuit
by fostering an independent student press QT36
Quick Tips: Student First Amendment Rights
Yeo v. Town of Lexington (1997) in the First Circuit Court of Appeals
by Jan Ewell
Because Lexington High School students made all the editorial, business and staffing decisions for both the LHS Yearbook and the school paper, a suit against the district failed. The school’s superintendent, principal, the two publication advisers and the five school members of the school committee escaped unharmed from the suit that alleged they were violating the First and Fourteenth amendments when the school publications refused two ads.
In 1992 the Lexington School Committee in Lexington, Massachusetts debated making condoms available to students without parental permission. The Musket, the Lexington High School newspaper, ran news articles and editorials on the debate.
Douglas Yeo, a parent and the leaders of a group opposing the condom-distribution policy, complained to the school’s principal about the Musket’s coverage, saying it did not accurately reflect his group’s position. The principal acted in accord with Massachusetts’s law, which gives editorial control to the students under the Tinker standard. He directed Yeo to the student editors of the paper, saying they would make any decisions regarding corrections. He suggested Yeo write a letter to the editor. Yeo did not contact the student paper.
In March of 1993 the voters of Lexington approved the condom distribution policy. In November Yeo and his group submitted a $200 check and a full page ad to the yearbook. The ad read, “ABSTINENCE: The Healthy Choice. Sponsored by: Lexington Parents Information Network (LEXNET)” followed by a post office box number.
In an editorial meeting considered the ad, the student editors of the yearbook decided it was out of context with their publication; most of their ads congratulated graduates. Some came from family, others from local businesses used by students. The Yearbook had an unwritten policy not to publish political advocacy ads.
Through their adviser (this was before cell phones) they asked Yeo to rewrite the ad to reflect the usual patterns. Yeo refused and threatened to sue the yearbook unless his ad was published as submitted. The students discussed the ad again and decided to stand by their original decision. Yeo apparently felt the students were censoring him and faxed in response, “based on our understanding of the right of equal access and free speech, we do not accept your rejection of our ad and ask that you reconsider your decision to censor it.”
In January of 1994 Yeo submitted the same ad to the Musket, the student run newspaper, with an added line reading, “For accurate information on abstinence, safer sex and condoms, contact. . .” The student editors met and decided to reject the ad. Though a number of students at the meeting supported Yeo’s pro-abstinence views, they did not want the Musket to turn into a bulletin board for advocacy on lifestyle issues. Additionally, they were uncomfortably with having to run an ad because someone had threated to sue them.
They wrote Yeo saying that if they had accepted his ad, they “would feel obligated to accept other political statements that might come our way. We do not wish to put ourselves in such position. Ultimately Ad space is not a public forum and for that reason the Musket reserves the right to select what Advertisements it chooses to print.”
Yeo threatened the town and school authorities with legal action. Though the administration wished to avoid lawsuits, they continued to support the students’ control of the content of their publication. This proved fortunate for them because the only forms of government (including schools and the teachers as government employees) are restrained by the First Amendment. If the school, that is, the government, had decided whether to run the ad, they may indeed have violated Yeo’s rights.
The students suggested that Yeo write a letter to the editor; the Letter to the Editor section was a public forum. Yeo refused and insisted his ad be run as submitted, “as is our legal right.” He concluded, “You don’t have to agree with it. You don’t even have to like. You just have to print it. Touché. ”
Yeo did sue the superintendent, the principal, the advisers of the yearbook and newspaper, and the Lexington school committee, claiming that they were denying his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. He did not name the publication or the students, who in fact were the ones who rejected his ad, but as private entities and as citizens the students and their publication could not violate his First or Fourteenth amendment rights.
Ultimately the U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against Yeo. Student journalists do have the right to refuse ads. They are not government agents. Since only the government is in a position to violate the First Amendment or the Fourteenth, there was no suppression of Yeo’s rights.
Furthermore, the court ruled that the school district was not responsible for the students’ decisions. “As a matter of law, we see no legal duty here on the part of school administrators to control the content of the editorial judgments of student editors of publications.”
Under Massachusetts law, the students control the content of the student publications. At Lexington High School, the policy and practice had been for the students to make editorial and business decisions. School officials were not responsible for those decisions, and so there were no First or Fourteenth amendment violations.
The district was protected from judgment in the suit because the students controlled the student media.
And yes, both publications changed their unwritten policy concerning political advocacy ads into clear written policies.
Note: This is not a Supreme Court Case. In May of 1998 the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, letting the First Circuit Court’s decision stand. It is the law in only the First Circuit, that is Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island, but it has been cited as a persuasive precedent in similar case.
Resources:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1136678.html
http://principalsguide.org/the-first-amendment-and-student-media/
http://www.splc.org/article/1998/08/court-refuses-to-hear-advertiser
Read MoreWhen sources don’t respond QT35
Guideline:
The publication staff will provide every reasonable opportunity for sources to respond to a request for an interview. Students must first attempt to contact the source in person or through an administrative assistant. If the person is not available, they should attempt calling and leaving a message with a request for an in-person interview. If, after 24 hours, the source does not respond to the telephone call, staffers should send an email requesting an in-person interview with a clear deadline by which the staffer will include the line “the source did not respond to an interview request.”
Social media post/question:
What to do when a source does not respond?
Stance:
Publication staffs must make all reasonable attempts to secure an interview, and if they cannot get a response from a source, they must develop their credibility and show the reader they made an attempt to interview a source, but the source did not respond.
Key Points:
An easy way to stop or stall a story is to make sure the students never get an interview with the people who have the information. It’s easy for a source to ignore a request for an interview. What is your responsibility as a publication when reasonable attempts are made to secure an interview, but the source does not respond?
Reasoning/suggestions:
To maintain credibility with their readers and/or to show balance, publication staffers must show they followed proper procedures to offer right of response or to obtain pertinent information for a story. When a story goes out with important sources who have been omitted, readers have a right to question the veracity or intent of the story. Always let your readers know who you contacted for the story even if they ignored or rejected your request for an interview.
Read More