No license, no car
by Stan Zoller, MJE
One of my favorite arguments, if one can have such an entity, is with other journalism educators regarding how they start their course.
While in the midst of this discussion a number of years ago, one adviser told me she always starts with interviewing and then moves into journalistic history.
And what about journalistic laws and ethics?
“Oh,” she said, “I cover those later in the course.”
I was reminded of this discussion while teaching at a recent workshop. My students were all editorial leaders and during our discussion of prior review, prior restraint and New Voices legislation, both the Tinker and Hazelwood cases (naturally) came up.
To my dismay none of the students were familiar with either of these cases.
Where, pray tell, were their journalism teachers and/or advisers?
While some students were working on club media, or had small programs, there obviously has to be a faculty member or administrator involved. They should, at the very least, be familiar with both Tinker and Hazelwood so they can provide guidance to the student journalists.
They apparently don’t. Unfortunately, several students told me content for their media is prior reviewed and, as one student said, needs to be written so it presents the school in a positive light.
[pullquote]
Why is it important to start with the fundamental press law and ethics? I like to equate it to driver’s education – you don’t get the keys to the car and go on the road until you know the rules of the road.
[/pullquote]
I can hear Fred Rogers saying “Can you say PR tool, boys and girls? I knew you could.”
Why is it important to start with the fundamental press law and ethics? I like to equate it to driver’s education – you don’t get the keys to the car and go on the road until you know the rules of the road.
While Tinker and Hazelwood are not the foundation of press law, when it comes to scholastic journalism, they are an essential part of the foundation. All journalists should know the basics of media ethics and law before they go on an interview, take a picture or start recording video.
This is not breaking news, but journalists, in this case beginning with scholastic journalists, need to realize laws tell journalists what they must do while ethics guide scribes to what they should do. This is why it’s paramount to make sure journalism students are well versed in these fundamentals before they start their work as journalists.
The basics of both the Tinker case Tinker Decision and Hazelwood case Hazelwood decision will help students understand the scope of what administrators can – and cannot do. JEA members can find additional information about both cases in the JEA curriculum at JEA curriculum
If scholastic journalists are going to be prepared to deal with issues related to prior review, prior restraint and the scope of New Voices registration, they need to have the basics down pat.
Not sure?
Ask yourself – would you ride with someone who never took driver’s ed?
A complete look at key cases, including Tinker and Hazelwood, can be found at JEA’s Scholastic Press Rights Commission’s web site, Scholastic Press Rights Commission
Read More
Teaching grit for citizenship —
why we must empower, not shield students
by Kristin Taylor. The Archer School, Los Angeles, CA
Teachers, advisers and administrators want to help our students. We want to give them the tools to succeed, but we also sometimes want to protect them — to shield them from harsh truths and difficult situations.
If we want students to value citizenship, however, we must let them be citizens in school. Citizenship isn’t easy, and it isn’t “safe.” Citizenship means taking an active role, speaking truth to power, and taking risks. If we want them to learn to be citizens, we must resist that urge to shield and protect and instead empower them to make their own decisions and take responsibility for the outcomes.
By now you’ve likely heard a lot about the remarkable team of high school journalists who uncovered fraud in their incoming new principal Amy Robertson’s resume, which eventually led to her resignation. These students clearly understand citizenship and their role as watchdogs after making the hard choice to write a story directly targeting an administrator.
Equally inspiring is the Wichita Eagle’s article about Emily Smith, the adviser who gave her students the strength to take this risk. The article outlines how a student uncovered some discrepancies and asked Smith for help looking into them. A little research and a meeting with the superintendent led to disturbing information and raised troubling questions about the validity of Robertson’s educational credentials and experience.
Smith could have protected her students. She could have withheld information or told them —accurately — that pursuing this story was going to rock the boat in a serious way and could result in an adversarial relationship with their new principal. She also could have sat down with them and told them what to do — pursue it, or let it be. Instead, Smith gave them the information and left the room, leaving them to discuss and decide if they wanted to report this story. She empowered them to make a hard choice.
She told this team of six student journalists that she would support them no matter what they decided, but she also made sure they considered their societal responsibilities.
[pullquote]Smith could have protected her students. She could have withheld information or told them —accurately — that pursuing this story was going to rock the boat in a serious way and could result in an adversarial relationship with their new principal. She also could have sat down with them and told them what to do — pursue it, or let it be. Instead, Smith gave them the information and left the room, leaving them to discuss and decide if they wanted to report this story. She empowered them to make a hard choice.[/pullquote]
“If you guys decide this is not your place or it’s over our head, I would completely respect that,” Smith said in a video interview about the conversation she had with them. “However, you need to think about your responsibility to the community and the situation you’re in,” she said. “It’s not always easy to do the right thing, and I think what you’re doing is right.”
Despite skepticism from superintendent Destry Brown and a Skype interview with Robertson (supervised by Brown) where students had to interrupt Robertson to ask their questions, they pursued the story. Despite being scolded by Brown for being too hard on Robertson in that interview and being told he hoped they would write “a nice piece welcoming Robertson to the community” to make up for it, they pushed on.
Despite losing Smith’s advice after Spring Break when she recused herself on the advice of the director of Kansas Scholastic Press Association due to a potential conflict of interest — she’d been on an early hiring committee panel — they kept going. Smith brought in local reporters to act as adult advice but stepped back from the process and didn’t see the final story until it was printed. Despite how hard these professional journalists pushed the students to corroborate and fact-check and sometimes re-interview, they wrote the story and met the deadline.
This is a story about grit and trust. It’s a story about teaching students to push forward despite obstacles. It’s a story about teaching teenagers that they are strong enough and smart enough and trustworthy enough to be citizens. It’s also a story about that terrifying moment when we advisers decide to step back and trust that we have given our students the tools and ethical foundation to be journalists.
As Smith notes in the video, had her students been wrong, this would have been a very different story. They would not have been invited to the White House Correspondents Dinner, nor would they be flooded with congratulatory messages from national publications or an invitation from Duke to apply to its journalism program. Smith would have been in a very awkward position with the new principal, who would likely have placed some of the blame for the students’ decisions on Smith herself — however unfairly, since students have all final say on content as per Kansas’ free speech laws.
[pullquote]But making mistakes is also part of being a citizen, and accountability is another crucial lesson about adult life. Part of being a good adviser is knowing you, too, are taking a risk, but the risk is worth it.[/pullquote]
But making mistakes is also part of being a citizen, and accountability is another crucial lesson about adult life. Part of being a good adviser is knowing you, too, are taking a risk, but the risk is worth it.
The Eagle’s article ends with Connor Balthazor, one of the team of six students who reported the story, reflecting on the difference between Superintendent Brown’s and adviser Smith’s approaches to the situation:
“Although they will be recognized for their perseverance, Balthazor says he will always remember how, even as Brown tried to shield them from the dangers of the adult world, Smith pushed them to take responsibility for it.
“’She’s probably the best teacher I’ve ever had,’” Balthazor said. “’Simply from a human being perspective. She has incredible moral integrity.’”
“’You are fighting the good fight; you’re doing the right thing by doing this,’” she told them 20 times a day, he said. “’This is some of the most important work you’ll ever do.’”
“’And she was right.’”
Students need guidance, advice and foundational skills. They need an ethical framework and adult feedback from a qualified adviser to provide perspective along the way. Ultimately, though, we adults must have the courage to let our students be citizens. If they can be this brave, so can we.
Read More
A 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 MoreJust This Once: FSW lesson 2
The American Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee released “The Speaker … A Film About Freedom” in 1977. The film, in its original form, comes with a discussion guide. Today, the website for it has the discussion guide and links to coverage about the film and other pertinent articles. Controversial in 1977, the film today hits at many current issues surrounding free speech. Note the date, 1977. Clothing and style reflect that timeframe. It might take students a while to get beyond that and into the First Amendment issues.
Title
“Just this once”
Description
Based on a 1977 film by the American Library Association, The Speaker, on whether a school and its community should allow a speaker to talk on controversial issues. The key question is, essentially, “What is the harm in just this once in preventing a person from speaking an idea.”
Objectives
- Students will analyze the questions raised in the film.
- Students will discuss the issues raised in the film.
- Students will develop a position based on what they find.
- Students will formulate possible alternative solutions to the film’s outcome.
Common Core State Standards
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.11-12.7 | Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in different media or formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively) as well as in words in order to address a question or solve a problem. |
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.4 | Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings; analyze the cumulative impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone (e.g., how the language of a court opinion differs from that of a newspaper). |
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.5 | Analyze in detail how an author’s ideas or claims are developed and refined by particular sentences, paragraphs, or larger portions of a text (e.g., a section or chapter). |
Length
120 minutes
Materials / resources
Internet access for the film’s background: http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2014/05/ala-members-discuss-controversial-film-speaker-annual-conference
The Speaker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojFYx52X-Ys
Lesson step-by-step
Step 1 — introduction (10 minutes)
The teacher should present background to the film from the ALA site and raise the essential question for the activity: “What is the harm in just this once in preventing a person from speaking an idea.” Stress should be placed on the concept of free expression, especially in context with Free Speech Week. The teacher might also have to discuss the difference in clothing and fashion.
Step 2 — Show the film (43 minutes)
Option 1: Show the film in its entirety without stopping for explanation. Students would have to take notes and jot down questions they have.
Option 2: Stop the film at student questions or at teacher-chosen key points for discussion/explanation. This, of course would lengthen the presentation time into Day 2.
Step 3:— Processing the film’s information (7 minutes) (Homework assignment)
Ask students to examine their notes and list key points made for and against the speaker, and to be ready to discuss the issues and to plan for alternatives.
Step 4 — Day 2 Discussion (25 minutes)
Students will discuss the issues of the film, working toward a conclusion of whether the speaker should speak.
Option 1: Small group discussion with each group reaching a decision which would have to be resolved in class.
Option 2: Large group discussion with possible resolutions posted on whiteboard for decisions.
Step 5 — Alternatives and solutions (25 minutes)
With their possible solutions of the whiteboard, have students work in small groups to examine alternatives. Is it an either-or dilemma? Are alternatives possible and would they help accommodate all positions? What types of ethical problem solving is possible? Have the small groups work toward explaining their decision in terms of ethics.
Step 6 — Final discussion (10 minutes)
What surprised you the most? What was the best alternative or solution? How as a journalist should you apply the issues involved?
Assign each student to prepare a 50 word or less statement in the form of a poster of why his or her decision of “just this once” is the ethical stance to take. Statement due the next class.
Step 7 — Assessment
Credit given to student responses in the 50-word statement. Post them in the classroom for continued discussion and possible use in class/staff ethical guidelines.
Differentiation
The teacher might have students watch the video at home and take notes there, shortening the lessons by one day.
Extension
The class could spend an additional day making the issues current by replacing the speaker with a politician/issues from the 2016 presidential election.
Read MoreFree Speech Week lesson:
What does the First Amendment protect
Lesson:
What does the First Amendment protect?
Description:
This lesson takes a look at the freedoms the First Amendment to the Constitution protects and explores what these mean to students.
Objectives:
- Students will understand more about their rights.
- Students will see how the First Amendment applies to them.
- Students will learn the First Amendment.
Common Core State Standards:
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.9 | Analyze seminal U.S. documents of historical and literary significance (e.g., Washington’s Farewell Address, the Gettysburg Address, Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms speech, King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”), including how they address related themes and concepts. |
| CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.11-12.8 | Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning (e.g., in U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions and dissents) and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy (e.g., The Federalist, presidential addresses). |
Length 50 – 60 minutes
Materials
- Copies of the First Amendment for each student
- First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- White board and markers
Introduction (10 minutes)
When students enter the class, ask them to take out a sheet of paper and write down the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. When they are finished, share with them the answers: region, speech, press, assembly, petition. Discuss briefly what each of these mean.
Small Groups (15 – 20 minutes)
Break into five groups (or, depending on the size of the class, 10 groups with two groups doing each freedom) and assign each group a freedom. Ask each group to list all the ways that freedom impacts their lives. (answers will vary, but should include such things as how free speech would affect students wearing political t-shirts, free press would impact students making content decisions in student media, students wanting to make a change in school policy, etc.)
Report out (10 – 15 minutes)
Have someone from each group list his or her group’s answer on the white board. As each freedom is posted, ask others in the class to add any other ways that freedom comes into play in their lives.
Exit slips (10 minutes)
Ask students to choose one of the five freedoms they think impacts them the most and write why it’s important to them.
Extension
Challenge students to memorize the First Amendment and recite it to the class in the future. Have prizes (candy, hand-made badge, etc.) to award when they successfully repeat the 45 words of this important document.
Read More