Minors as subjects of sensitive topics
*Editor’s note: This is the second of a series of rotating columns by commission members to appear Wednesdays. Megan Fromm will present best practices for teaching ethics; Jeff Kocur will discuss common problems student leaders and advisers face and how to overcome them; Candace Perkins Bowen will examine journalistic ties to Common Core standards; Mark Goodman will write about current events and impact on law as it affects scholastic media and Marina Hendricks will address ethical issues and online journalism.
by Jeff Kocur
When my students told me they wanted to write a story about a transgender student, my first thought was. “Here we go again.”
After last year’s series of controversial topics such as fighting, teen pregnancy, hazing, race, and other issues that raised the ire of my admin, simply because of their topics, I was ready for at least one issue that didn’t push the envelope.
But that isn’t really journalism.
Read MoreEthical Case Study: A lesson on the rules of
prior approval of quotes, content
by John Bowen
The question of whether reporters should have to obtain prior approval of quotes is in the news again with NPR’s Morning Edition of Sept. 18.
Here’s a lesson about involving students in that discussion on both commercial and scholastic levels.
Read MoreThe importance of context: A lesson on ethics and editing
Last week, NBC officials bore the brunt of an outraged public when the Today Show played a poorly edited 9-1-1 tape from the Trayvon Martin shooting investigation. The tape, some argued, unfairly portrayed Zimmerman as racist. This lesson explores the ethics of proper editing as well as the journalistic mandate that context never be sacrificed for brevity.
Lesson plan by Megan Fromm
Lesson Time: 25-30 minutes
Materials: computer lab/group internet access for research, white board, projection capabilities (or you can make copies of materials for students)
PART I:
First, discuss the background of the Martin/Zimmerman case. What information do students already know? What “facts” do they need to research and verify?
1. Create a class list on the white board of all the “facts” students believe they know about the case.
2.In groups of 2-3, students should take 5-10 minutes to research and verify or discredit one of the facts.
3. Bring the class back together, and make a list of verified facts on the white board, including the sources where students got the information.
Now, as a class, listen to the NBC version of the 9-1-1 tapes. Here is a link for the audio: (Pause at 10 seconds)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf_AtDnVhyA
Instruct students to write down any assumptions they might draw about the case from listening to this 911 tape.
Then, play the unabridged 9-1-1 tapes, also found here: (continue playing from 00:10)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf_AtDnVhyA
Discuss whether the assumptions created from the edited tapes were supported in the original audio. Ask the following:
Did the second segment tell a different story? What was different? Was there more or less context? Why do you think NBC edited the 911 tape the way they did? How many seconds long was the edited version? How long was the original version?
PART II:
As a class, take a look at some of the reaction to the NBC audio:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-to-do-internal-investigation-on-zimmerman-segment/2012/03/31/gIQAc4HhnS_blog.html
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/10/3546575/commentary-today-show-should-do.html
For an interesting twitter feed screen-capture with responses:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-news-president-speaks-out-on-zimmerman-tape-scandal/2012/04/09/gIQAQ0iw5S_blog.html
Now, back in their groups (or as a class if you can project the internet onto a screen), have students search for the original NBC statement of apology, issued by NBC president to Reuters news service.
Can anyone find it? Is it on the Today Show’s homepage?
Can you find it on msnbc.com, NBC’s online news outlet?
What about at nbc.com?
Is it acceptable that the original statement is so hard to find? What do you think this says to readers/viewers?
How prominent should the statement be if the original mistake has gone viral?
Here’s a synopsis of the statement (you can also finish playing the youtube video from earlier, which shows a quote from the apology):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/08/us-usa-florida-shooting-nbc-idUSBRE83609U20120408
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-issues-apology-on-zimmerman-tape-screw-up/2012/04/03/gIQA8m5jtS_blog.html
Some further ethical questions to consider:
• Is it ever OK to edit a 9-1-1 tape?
• How should we give readers/viewers/listeners access to the full content?
• What type of information is it OK to cut from audio?
• Do we tell our readers/viewers/listeners that we have edited parts out?
• How do we ensure that an edited slice of audio reflects the factual and contextual information our audience would get if they heard the whole thing?
• What is the appropriate way to correct a mistake of this magnitude?
• If you were the editor in charge, how would you handle this? How would you handle the apology and statement?
PART III:
Finally, as a class, read the Radio Television News Directors Association Code of Ethics, and highlight and discuss the parts that discuss context and accuracy. Did NBC act ethically according to this guide?
http://www.rtnda.org/pages/media_items/code-of-ethics-and-professional-conduct48.php
Read MoreOp/Ed Writing With An Ethics Twist: An In-Class Lesson
By Megan Fromm
This lesson was inspired by the recent Twitterfest regarding Kansas high school student Emma Sullivan’s tweet about the governor during a trip to the capital. The lesson will take 30+ minutes, and students will need their own paper and pencil. Here are some links for background information on the incident, which will come in handy toward the end of the lesson.
Intro:
Ask students to discuss openly what things they may not like about their school (of course, remind them that they should be as respectful as possible in this discussion). It could be anything, but the point is to stimulate a 5-minute or so discussion (that will likely get a bit heated, that’s OK!).
Write some of their statements on the board (ie: the school food sucks, the principal is mean, the school doesn’t let us have any say, lunch periods are too short, teachers give too much homework, etc). Leave blank space under the statements, and after you have a range of claims, have students go back to the ideas on the board and write supporting facts underneath each claim. These must be provable facts, researchable items of support that lead them to believe those claims.
Exercise:
Choose the claim that has the LEAST number of supporting facts underneath. Students will then take 5-10 minutes to write the beginnings of an opinion piece on this topic (some might write 500 words, but encourage students to get at least a couple paragraphs down—you’re not editing for spelling or grammar, but how they express their opinion using ONLY the facts on the board to support their opinion).
Once the time is up, discuss with the class how easy/hard this was. What kind of information do they wish they had to support their opinions? What questions would they ask to get more information? How seriously do they think the administration/teachers/other students would take their opinion, considering the lack of facts to support it? What other facts would it take to convince people of their claim? How easy/hard would it be to argue with the opinion you’ve established?
Now, after the time is up, pick the claim with the MOST number of supporting facts, and repeat the exercise. They are allowed to support their opinion ONLY with the facts on the board. (Note: if you don’t have any claim with at least 5-7 facts, provide a few more “facts” of your own for the student to incorporate in their writing.)
Again, once the time is up, discuss how writing about this claim was different. Was it easier (it should have been)? Why? How did having more facts add to their argument? How do they think the administration or student body would respond to these opinion pieces versus the first? How easy/hard would it be to argue with the opinion you’ve established in this piece?
Takeaway:
Follow up their responses with a discussion on informed opinions, and the value of opinion writing when it is supported by facts and research. This process is similar to how they should start writing opinion pieces in the school paper: it all starts with a complaint, a grievance, an idea, a perspective, but the professionals know how to support their perspectives with research, facts, and explanations that sound intelligent and insightful instead of whiny. Their research builds them up, making it harder for critics to attack what they are saying.
Follow-up
Now, use the story links at the beginning as background information to discuss what happened in Kansas with your students/staff. Once they know what has happened with Emma Sullivan, have them make a list on the board of questions or facts that would need to be addressed in order to support Sullivan’s twitter claim that the governor “sucks.” Imagine she were writing a full opinion/editorial piece—how much information would she need to know?
“Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot.”
Finally, (depending on your time, this could be a whole different discussion) discuss with students why it is so important that as journalists, we support even our opinion/editorial perspectives with facts and research. Why do we need to be responsible and accurate with opinion writing? Why must facts be involved? Who are we responsible to? Emma was not a journalist, no one was counting on her to be accurate, fair, and clear—what if someone on your newspaper staff wrote a tweet like hers? How can journalists have opinions but still be respected, respectful, and responsible? What kind of issues should we consider in regards to our school journalists using social media to express their opinions? The school decided not to mandate a punishment, but what if her tweet was a line in an article in the school newspaper?
Need help with censorship issues?
Press the Panic Button!
JEA’s Scholastic Press Rights Commission (SPRC) has set up a uniform process to help advisers – and students – who seek advice about handing censorship or other legal issues.
The Panic Button is an online reporting tool to collect information from those experiencing some type of censorship.
When an adviser or student uses the Panic Button to submit information, designated SPRC members receive notification. This sets in motion a series of responses following a checklist system. In no way will the commission direct the fight against censorship, but each person has a different course of action in supporting the adviser and students while offering suggestions and resources specific to that situation.
As JEA vice president and Commission member Sarah Nichols reported in an email to state and regional directors and board members, “We [a Press Rights Commission subcommittee that developed the process] focused on four key goals:
• A consistent method of reporting
• A process that works quickly
• A tool for collecting data
• A way to avoid overlap and prevent harm.”
Here’s who gets involved and how:
When the adviser hits the panic button and files a report, he or she instantly gets a check sheet with steps to take – like “Take a deep breath — you have support” and “Keep a paper trail.” A student can hit the Panic Button, too, and the check sheet he or she gets is a little different, including, “Contact the Student Press Law Center,” and “Get parental and other student support.” That request for assistance goes to six SPRC members, who quickly respond.