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
They need the freedom
to make mistakes, too
by Lindsay Coppens, adviser of The Harbinger, Algonquin Regional High School, Northborough, MA
Scholastic press freedom is a big responsibility, and true freedom comes when young journalists aren’t just free to do great journalism but also are free to make journalistic mistakes and learn from them.
As teachers and advisers, we work hard to teach our student journalists the principles, skills and ethics they need while fostering their abilities to problem solve and communicate.
We need to continually remember, though, that it is the students’ publication, and while it can be tempting to continually hold their hands or catch them before they fall, the most powerful lessons can come from failures. My new editorial board recently had one of these learning-from-failure experiences, and I am confident they are stronger journalists because of it.
[pullquote]We need to continually remember, though, that it is the students’ publication, and while it can be tempting to continually hold their hands or catch them before they fall, the most powerful lessons can come from failures.[/pullquote]
Like many publications, at our paper a new editorial board begins its work in the spring. The new editors take the reins continuing established traditions, figuring out how to make their own mark, and tackling the behemoth task of organizing and creating social media posts, daily online updates and a final print issue of the year.
This year’s new group of 15 editors did a particularly great job putting together an ambitious 24-page print issue two weeks before school let out for summer. They set a goal (and met it) of pushing their page design in a more creative direction while taking on issues of substance.
They took a stand by writing an editorial which reprimanded the graduating class and others of recent years for destructive pranks and behaviors at celebratory school events, encouraging future seniors to have fun while being less harmful to others. They did all of this working as a team for the first time while I, their adviser who is normally there for most of the long after school “press week” hours, was largely absent due to a family medical emergency.
As I told the editors, my absence during their first issue was a true test of their skills and will. I hadn’t read about half the published pieces until the print issue hit the stands, and while I saw many of the pages pre-publication (mainly through pictures editors texted me asking for feedback) and gave some suggestions, this was the most hands-off I’ve been with any issue since I started advising eight years ago. I was incredibly proud of what they accomplished.
Then a few hours after the paper was distributed, I received an email from a senior class adviser who was angry about the editorial. She listed at least four key facts she claimed they got wrong, and while she recognized it was an opinion piece, she was “very disappointed with the wild inaccuracy of the article.”
Immediately my heart sank. What had happened? Was she right or were the kids?
I briefly replied, thanking her for the feedback, affirming that accuracy is of the utmost importance and letting her know I was forwarding her concerns to the student editors-in-chief who would be in touch with her soon.
I wanted the communication to be directly between her and the editors, but I also respect my relationship with my colleague. After meeting with the editors who looked physically ill when they realized their mistake in reporting rumors which they had not fact checked, I sent her one more follow up email the same afternoon:
“I just wanted you to know that the kids are having an editorial board meeting right now, and the biggest topic is the editorial–what went right, what went wrong (and how & why). They are picking apart their process and how they do or don’t fact-check, and what to do when mistakes are made. Anyhow, it sounds as if the process fell apart and they forgot about being skeptical reporters and that opinions need to be based on verified facts. The editors should be in touch with you soon to talk.”
[pullquote] “‘Thanks for following up with me and hopefully this can be a good real-life learning experience for our budding journalists. :-)’”[/pullquote]
She wrapped up her reply to me on an understanding note, which reaffirmed that much of our community understands the school paper isn’t just a product but an educational process: “Thanks for following up with me and hopefully this can be a good real-life learning experience for our budding journalists. :-)”
Meanwhile, at their lengthy meeting the editors identified every single fact that needed to be verified (and should have been before publication), and they put a plan into action that two editors would spearhead a fact-checking mission and write a completely new editorial to be published online.
This editorial would be honest in recognizing their mistakes and emphasize transparency in an attempt to not only set the record straight but also regain the trust of readers.
They also realized that the editorial was not a mistake of only one person, but illuminated a weakness and breakdown in their collective process: they had all read and approved of the piece, but not one had questioned the details beyond phrasing, word choices and grammar.
As a group they agreed they needed to be more skeptical and rigorous in their reading, even and perhaps especially of each other’s work. They also recognized the need to establish a clear fact-check protocol for every published piece.
In the end the editors formally interviewed seven sources, informally spoke with many others, and attempted to interview additional key players, all while preparing for and taking their final exams. As a result, they wrote and published an editorial, “Be skeptical of rumors, thoroughly check facts,” that I am incredibly proud of.
The piece begins candidly: “We made a mistake because we listened to rumors instead of skeptically stopping and checking the facts.”
The editorial continues by revealing and apologizing for their mistakes, sharing their process of determining the facts and affirming their commitment to their readers. Their work clearly demonstrates humility, transparency and dedication to being good journalists.
Yes, they stumbled and briefly fell, but my team learned more than I could have taught them in a classroom lesson. They are stronger journalists for the experience.
Read MoreDo we have the right to erase the past?
The take-down conundrum leads to debate
by Lindsay Coppens, Adviser of The Harbinger, Algonquin Regional High School, Northborough, MA
Should what is posted about us (comments, articles, photos, videos) online be under our control? Should what we publish or submit for publication online be under our control despite who owns and controls the website? Do people have the right to demand content be taken down?
Overview
Online publications, both professional and scholastic, inevitably face take-down requests, which can range from polite inquiries to angry demands. Since going online four years ago, our high school news publication has had two take-down requests: one from the subject of an article and the other from a former staff writer who wanted an opinion piece removed. Both had graduated a few years prior and had different reasons for their requests.
The first wanted a news article removed because she now identified as a different gender than she did while the focus of article. The article had nothing to do with the subject’s gender identity—the student had spearheaded a school-wide recycling program that is still in place years later.
In the other case, the former staff member requested his column be removed because he had since changed his opinion. The piece was not on a controversial topic and did not take a particularly unusual stance: he argued that students’ placement in courses they request should be based on merit, not seniority.
Luckily before any request happened the staff already had a policy in place. This policy in the staff manual, however, was not their automatic answer to the requests. But it was a jumping off point for discussion and, in one case, an intense debate among the almost 20 person editorial board.
[pullquote]“The Harbinger does not grant take-down requests of published material, whether the request is from the subject of an article, a former staff member, or some other entity. If a story is inaccurate, the editors will look into the matter and, if needed, publish a correction or update in the form of an editor’s note.”[/pullquote]
The policy also ultimately gave the editorial board the confidence and support to hold strong to their decision.
Policy
The policy in the corrections section of the staff manual reads: “The Harbinger does not grant take-down requests of published material, whether the request is from the subject of an article, a former staff member, or some other entity. If a story is inaccurate, the editors will look into the matter and, if needed, publish a correction or update in the form of an editor’s note.”
Application
In each situation, the board gathered to discuss the request. In the first case (from the subject of the recycling article) the board quickly agreed not to take down the article. However, they decided to amend the piece, editing it to change the subject’s first name and pronoun to correlate with how she now identifies. They decided not to emphasize the changes in an editorial note because they thought they did not change the meaning or substance of the article, and more importantly they did not want to further draw attention to the shifting of the subject’s gender. She was satisfied with the edits and decision.
The request from the former staff member was trickier. While only a few of the editors were vaguely familiar with the writer because he graduated a few years earlier, they were initially divided in their responses to the request. Some immediately thought, “Why not? It’s his article; if he wants it removed, remove it.”
Then others brought up the point could a take-down set precedent, and would they remove any article, opinion, or review just because the writer no longer wanted it up?
Even though it’s not a news article, does his column mark a concern that was held by some at the point in time it was written (they said yes), and was it, in a way, part of the record of what happened and what was debated in our school? Does it matter that if it only was published in print, it couldn’t be expunged?
Others asserted that, in a way, print eventually disappears (except for when people hoard old papers) and something online potentially lasts and could easily be found forever.
Back and forth they discussed how years from now they, too, may be embarrassed by what they thought and wrote in high school, while others said, “Yeah, but you and others would also realize you were in high school.” They debated how former staff members could potentially be impacted when looking for jobs or simply if someone googles them.
Others laughed that maybe that gave yet another reason that they should step up their writing game. They discussed who “owns” any work created, submitted, and published by staff members (they agreed, and our editorial policy states, that the publication does).
Exasperated, at least one editor said mid-debate, “Does this really actually matter?” To which the rest resoundingly said, “Yes!”
All of this discussion resulted from a column that until that day none of them knew even existed, buried more than two years deep in the online archives. They all agreed in wondering why the heck this writer really wanted the piece taken down, and ultimately, after this rich debate about ethics, ownership, and control, they decided not to take down the piece.
[pullquote]Exasperated, at least one editor said mid-debate, “Does this really actually matter?” To which the rest resoundingly said, “Yes!”[/pullquote]
They did make two suggestions to the former staff member: he could post a comment in response to the piece explaining his change of mind, or he could submit a statement of similar effect that would run with the column as an author’s note.
He was frustrated with the decision, and actually begged again to have the seemingly innocuous column removed, but the Editor in Chief kindly but firmly replied that the publication’s policy was to not honor take-down requests.
Ultimately, he submitted an author’s note: a long statement of apology for his previous opinion and thanks to the guidance department for their help while he was in high school.
Maybe he’s hoping to come back to his alma mater as a guidance intern, or maybe some college friend read it and gave him a hard time about complaining about his high school course schedule. I’ll likely never know, but I do know from analytics that only a handful of people have read that column.
I also know that his take-down request led to an invigorating editorial board debate which helped to reinforce their sense of purpose and clarify why they do what they do.
Final point
Words do have power, as do the scholastic publications that publish those words. The students who run those publications have the power and responsibility to set policy, debate policy, and ultimately make their own decisions as a team.
They and the publication will be stronger for the experience.
Read MoreJEA is proud to sign
Statement in Support of Freedom of the Press
“In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government.” Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
As organizations committed to the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and the press, we are alarmed by the efforts of the President and his administration to demonize and marginalize the media and to undermine their ability to inform the public about official actions and policies.
Such efforts include the President’s refusal to answer questions posed by a reporter from CNN because the President asserts it promotes “fake news”; charges that the media “manipulated” images of the inauguration; false accusations that the media has covered up terrorist attacks; and repeated claims that the media is “failing” and “dishonest.” All of this recently culminated in the President calling the New York Times, CBS, CNN, ABC, and NBC News “the enemy of the American People!” and in the exclusion of representatives of various media outlets from a press briefing. In these and other examples, the President and his designees have attempted to villainize and discredit the press for any reporting he dislikes. However, the job of the press is not to please the President but to inform the public, a function that is essential to democracy.
The expressions of disdain for the press and its role in democracy by federal officials send a signal to state and local officials. In the aftermath of an election season that witnessed outright intimidation of journalists in communities around the country, there is a compelling need for highly placed federal officials to acknowledge the crucial role of a free press under our Constitution and the responsibility of government officials at all levels to respect it. In one chilling example, multiple individuals who identified themselves as journalists were arrested, detained, and charged with felonies while simply doing their job: reporting on Inauguration Day protests in Washington, D.C. Those arrests were made by local police and pursued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, both of which displayed an alarming lack of concern for fundamental constitutional rights. The fact that those charges have since been dropped suggests that the arrests were unwarranted and highlights the need for our nation’s leaders to set national policy that unequivocally supports a free and independent press and the public’s right to know.
Our Constitution enshrines the press as an independent watchdog and bulwark against tyranny and official misconduct. Its function is to monitor and report on the actions of public officials so that the public can hold them accountable. The effort to delegitimize the press undermines democracy, and officials who challenge the value of an independent press or question its legitimacy betray the country’s most cherished values and undercut one of its most significant strengths.
The First Amendment protects the right to protest, dissent, and petition government for a redress of grievances, but these rights cannot be exercised without a free press that provides information to the public. Together, these rights represent the constitutionally sanctioned method for the public to oppose government policies and activities and to seek change. The wisdom of this system can be seen in parts of the world where such a right does not exist, or is not honored, and violent opposition is the only available avenue to express opposition or remedy injustice.
We condemn in the strongest possible terms all efforts by elected and appointed officials to penalize, delegitimize, or intimidate members of the press.
March 2, 2017
Endorsed by:
Alliance for Community Media
Alliance for Media Arts + Culture
American Association of Law Libraries
American Booksellers Association
American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties of the
District of Columbia
American Copy Editors Society
American Library Association
American Society of Business
Publication Editors
American Society of Journalists and Authors
American Society of Magazine Editors
American Society of Media Photographers
American Society of News Editors
Arizona Press Club
Asian American Journalists Association
Associated Collegiate Press
Associated Press Media Editors
Associated Press Photo Managers
Association of Alternative Newsmedia
Association of American Editorial Cartoonists
Association of American University Presses
Association of Food Journalists
Association of Health Care Journalists
Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication
Association of Research Libraries
Association of Schools of Journalism
and Mass Communication
Authors Guild
Bill of Rights Defense Committee/Defending
Dissent Foundation
CCTV Center for Media & Democracy
Center for Media and Democracy
Center for Responsive Politics
Center for Scholastic Journalism
College Media Association
Colorado Press Women
Comic Book Legal Defense Fund
Committee to Protect Journalists
Demand Progress
Education Writers Association
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Freedom to Read Foundation
Free Press
Free Speech Coalition
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Institute for Nonprofit News’
Investigative Reporters and Editors
Journalism and Women Symposium
Journalism Education Association
Kurt Vonnegut Museum and Library
Local Independent Online News Publishers
Media Freedom Foundation
Media Law Resource Center
Military Reporters and Editors
National Association of Black Journalists
National Association of Hispanic Journalists
National Association of Science Writers
National Coalition Against Censorship
National Federation of Community Broadcasters
National Press Foundation
National Press Photographers Association
National Scholastic Press Association
National Society of Newspaper Columnists
National Writers Union
Native American Journalists Association
New England First Amendment Coalition
North American Agricultural Journalists
Online News Association
OpentheGovernment.org
PEN America
People For the American Way Foundation
Project Censored
Radio Television Digital News Association
Reporters Committee for Freedom
of the Press
Reporters Without Borders
Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics
and Law
Student Press Law Center
Sunlight Foundation
The Media Consortium
The NewsGuild-CWA
Tully Center for Free Speech
Unity: Journalists For Diversity
Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts
Washington-Baltimore News Guild
Women’s Media Center
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
Additional Endorsers:
City and Regional Magazine Association
Community of Literary Magazines and Presses
New York Financial Writers’ Association
Overseas Press Club
Small Press Distribution
The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute
Read MoreOn-site training program available
JEA is entering the second year of its partner project in partnership with the National Scholastic Press Association to deliver on-site training to journalism programs in need.
All journalism teachers and their students deserve support and training regardless of factors like location, funding and available resources. The National High School Journalism Convention offers fantastic programming for attendees, but the bottom line is that some of the teachers and students most in need are unable to attend.
The adviser outreach program is designed to help journalism teachers and their students develop sufficient skills necessary for producing student media and to connect them to a larger network in the form of a professional learning community with three veteran journalism teachers and their students.
How it works:
Teachers will apply in the spring, and those selected will undergo two introductory sessions online at a convenient spring or summer time to establish goals and develop a relationship with the trainers. During the fall training, students and teachers will benefit from direct instruction, hands-on practice and personal guidance from all three teacher-trainers. The focus will be reporting/writing, law and ethics, visual presentation and leadership. As part of the training, each school will set up a news website.
During the same week as the customized training, participants will be part of a free Saturday workshop at their school hosted by JEA/NSPA and open to all scholastic media programs within driving distance. In addition to breakout sessions, the workshop will include activities designed to form or strengthen local connections and professional learning communities.
After the classroom training and Saturday workshop, participants will collaborate as part of an ongoing professional learning community with the teacher-trainers and their students for the rest of the school year and for one year afterward in order to continue the adviser support, measure progress and provide ongoing feedback.
How to apply:
The online application process has two separate forms, one for the teacher and one for the principal. Both are due by April 1. (Candidates will receive a link to the principal form after submitting their initial application.) Click here for answers to frequently asked questions.
Read More