Teacher Appreciation Week
recommendation for principals
Dear Sir or Madam:
Here’s a little suggestion for Teacher Appreciation Week gift-giving. It will make your journalism teacher happier. Besides it will make you and, most important, your students a lot happier.
My suggestion: An open forum, no-prior-review policy where students, under the guidance of a trained journalism teacher, make the content decisions.
All that freedom sounds scary, you say? Having a Main Office set of eyeballs look over student media before it goes out may sound like a good idea, but doing so has often been a whole lot scarier for some. Consider these lessons from the archives of the Student Press Law Center showing how some principals learned the hard way:
Read MoreA newsroom guide for handling online comments
“The New York Times and The Washington Post have the two smartest teams of lawyers and editors in the world, and they’ve come to opposite conclusions. The Times is a review first/post later system and The Post is a post first/takedown later system. So there’s no industry standard or consensus.” – Frank LoMonte, Student Press Law Center
• Basically, there are two approaches for moderation of online comments:
— Post first and then take comments down if they are inappropriate
— Moderate and only post those that meet criteria
A third option, of course, is to allow no comments at all, but that runs counter to media serving as a forum for public expression.
For the most part, the same principles apply to handling comments as with handling letters to the editor in print or guest commentary in broadcast or online, including verification of sources and information. Once the decision is made to publish user comments or responses, label them clearly, keeping in mind your journalistic credibility and commitment to accuracy.
• How to handle inappropriate comments (*see model policy below)
Pulling down posted comments looks like censorship. And if you allow comments to be posted without moderating them first, you create the potential of incorrect and legally dangerous comments being captured/cached and available forever. Why publish something that jeopardizes your media’s ability to serve your community and then remove it after complaints or realizing it’s inappropriate? It’s all about the policy you establish, the atmosphere you seek to create on your site and your ability and willingness to enforce your rules and standards. Remember, if you edit comments and change the intent or meaning you are legally responsible for their content, according to Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act.
• Criteria for comments
Just as you need a policy for letters to the editor, you need a policy for determining when you will allow comments. Consider: Staffs can be responsible for the content of comments posted by others on their sites despite some special legal protections that exist in the online arena.
Ideally, those making comments will use real, verifiable names and email addresses. If they don’t, commenters could remain anonymous if the student editor knows their real names. Approving content ahead of time is not prior review because it is done by the student staff, not school officials. Anonymous comments should be taken down after a short time
Use of real names is an ethical issue. Knowing who a person is can give comments clarity, meaning and context, and add credibility. Because part of the impact of using comments is about creating community where all can participate and feel safe, knowing identities generates trust in the commenter and the comment. Search engines pick up comments as if they were content, so you have an obligation not to spread falsehood; information must be verified
• Be upfront and transparent about your policy and explain it thoroughly
Student media can establish a forum by setting ground rules of prior approval/rejection without changing content unless cleared with the author. Do not edit or revise comment content. Revisions should be made by the author.
Once posted, comments or information should not be removed for transparency, accuracy and reality in terms of establishing a historical record.
• Establish a procedure for handling comments
Appoint an online editor and staff to vet comments (which means training for that staff on how to handle comments). Online comments should be signed with verifiable addresses and IDs that are verifiable. Require real names or IDs known by student editors or identify who will verify the names and identification before publication
Study other media, including The New York Times, The Poynter Institute and The Washington Post, for guidelines as part of the process of setting up a policy. Decide what is permissible in comments ahead of time and clearly publicize the criteria. An example would be no personal attacks. Also publish a statement that a student “editor” will contact the poster for information, clarification, to have writer correct grammar, etc.
* A model policy section for handling comments might look like this, with content adapted from The Washington Post , The Poynter Institute and introductory wording modeled on The New York Times:
Model Comment Policy
We moderate comments to enable readers to share, without abusing others, informed and intelligent views that enhance the marketplace of ideas, focused to the topic of discussion not the presenter.
By posting comments:
1.We recommend use of real names for commenting. We will allow anonymous just like we allow anonymous sources provided we have verified the commenter’s identity.
2.You agree not to submit inappropriate content. Inappropriate content includes any content (as defined by the Student Press Law Center) that:
• Infringes upon or violates the copyrights, trademarks or other intellectual property rights of any person
• Is potentially libelous or defamatory
• Is obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit
• Violates a person’s right to privacy
• Violates any local, state, national, or international law
• Contains or advocates illegal or violent acts
• Degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or other classification
• Is predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass
• Contains advertising or solicitation of any kind
• Misrepresents your identity or affiliation
• Impersonates others
3.You agree you are fully responsible for the content that you submit. You will promptly remove any content that you have posted should you discover that it violates these rules or that it is otherwise inappropriate.
See more for the complete package:
Takedown demands?
Evaluating legal demands
Evaluating ethical choices
Decision models
10 steps to a “Put Up” policy
Resources
Read More
Put Up recommendations
Developing a Put Up Policy
Sometimes the best way to think about a Takedown Policy is to devise a system of proactive steps to avoid needing to take information down. Here are 10 steps to take before publishing:
• Independently confirm information to be used for accuracy, context, perspective, truth and coherence
• Determine whether sources used are credible and representative of diverse and knowledgeable viewpoints
• Clearly attribute all information as needed for clarity and authority
• Avoid anonymous sources except in situations where they are the best source and identities need protection
• Determine whether sources used have conflicts of interest
• Ensure your information has gone through a vetting process with editors
• If using teens or young people as sources, do so with an understanding of minimizing harm as well as publishing truthful and contextual information
• If using social media sources, be sure information is attributed, accurate, in context and used legally and ethically
• Train and background reporters in legal and ethical issues
• If using crowd generated content, clearly indicate the source and ensure its credibility
• Be skeptical of any information you cannot verify
See more for the complete package:
Evaluating legal demands
Evaluating ethical choices
Decision models
Resources
Handling online comments
Takedown demands?
How to apply to Making a Difference
and examine previous stories
The first Making a Difference in 1988 showed how students reported the impact of the Hazelwood decision.
Advisers, as you publish your students’ work, by print, broadcast or web, consider sharing your pieces that created change, reported significant issues or fulfilled the journalistic concept of social responsibility with the JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee’s Making a Difference project.
We want to make our posts monthly. These posts will highlight students who have made a difference through their reporting. When your students create content that has a positive impact on your school or community, and fulfills the concept of social responsibility, please fill out the submission form and we’ll tell you how to submit your content.
JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee will post one or more packages a month on its website and promote them on social media.
We published our first copy of Making a Difference in hard copy in 1988 because of the Hazelwood malaise. In that version, now downloadable, we highlighted scholastic reporting that demonstrated student journalism did not need the heavy hand of prior review and censorship. That tradition continues today and will continue so long as students continue to take their roles seriously and professionally.
In 2012, we committed ourselves to updating the project, hoping to show student journalism had not succumbed to Hazelwood.
We have seen some great work by student journalists across the country covering some intense topics. Let’s show the country what great work student journalists are doing that rivals work done by professional journalists.
Here are some of the stories submitted earlier:
Making a Difference articles – 2015
• McKinney students get it right
• Journalists document controversy challenging community
• Don’t drink the water
• Students report on shattered dreams
• Students support peers across the country in censorship case
• Documenting biodiversity in chicagoland
• Student promotes need for sex education
Making a Difference articles – 2014
• Students speak out about cancellation of SGA elections
• And the children shall lead them. Student journalists Make a Difference
• Student journalists make a difference
• Making a Difference: Student journalists document controversy
• Broken Hearts and Broken Minds
• Students tackle coverage of rape culture
• Freshman capstone project localizes national issue of gay rights
• Guns in America: From schools to shooting ranges
• Students speak out about cancellations of SGA election
• Freshman capstone project localizes national issues of gay rights
• Exposing the killing impact of Heroin
• Students support peers across the country in censorship case
• Make history come alive by interviewing local veterans
Past student work:
• Past stories: You can Make a Difference. Show everyone how
Court ruling may give
new meaning to ‘open mic’
by Stan Zoller
The ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court that strikes down the state statute prohibiting the recording of conversations without permission may not be the panacea a lot of people are hoping for.
The Chicago Tribune reports the statute was considered among the strictest in the country. The Court said loud conversations in public could not “be deemed private,”,noting “…a loud argument on the street, a political debate on a college quad, yelling fans at an athletic event, or any conversation loud enough that the speakers should expect to be heard by others.”
The case was, to no surprise, complicated and came as a result of recordings made by Annabel Melongo who recorded three telephone conversations she had with a court reporter supervisor at the Leighton Criminal Court Building about the policy for correcting a hearing transcript. Melongo was convicted and spent 20 months in Cook County Jail. Melongo also posted those recordings on the Internet.
[pullquote]At a time when there are more and more “citizen journalists,” professional journalists need to maintain or raise the bar of ethical news gathering. A gentle reminder that a conversation is being recorded is a great step to incorporate.[/pullquote]
While the Court’s ruling does not specifically cite the recording of telephone conversations, you can bet that there are those people who will record anything without asking.
And therein lies the problem.
For responsible citizens and journalists, the use of recording devices is a useful backup to ensure accuracy as no one likes to be misquoted. Freedom to record does not diminish the need for courtesy and ethics. It seems logical that a reporter, or other individual seeking to record a conversation, would inform the interviewee – whether it’s an in-person or phone interview. I imagine there will be a new round of protocol for both interviewers and interviewees.
For interviewers, inform; for interviewees, ask. If the Court ruling does in fact cover telephone interviews, do people now have to answer their phone “hello, please don’t record this?”
So while people will point the finger at over-zealous interviewers, there seems to be a possibility some people, especially public officials, may clam up out of fear of being recorded. Good bye transparency. At some point, in some way, the two sides need to work together. Responsible recorders, and for the sake of argument, journalists, need to have full disclosure from public officials no matter how the information is being taken down – writer or recorded. Conversely, journalists will need to follow ethical standards and not be deceitful in how they record (written or audio) information.
The Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists state that journalists should “…Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story…”
Quite simply, in most cases, do not be deceitful.
At a time when there are more and more “citizen journalists,” professional journalists need to maintain or raise the bar of ethical news gathering. A gentle reminder that a conversation is being recorded is a great step to incorporate.
Conversely, interviewees, especially public officials, need to recognize the need for transparency and not hide behind a microphone.
It’s a two-way street and in the end, it’s the news consumer who benefits the most.
For a look at the opinion by the Illinois Supreme Court, go to Eavesdropping Opinion
Read More