Journalistic responsibility goes hand-in-hand with news literacy
by John Bowen, MJE, Kent State University
Looking at Facebook over the weekend, I noticed two posts in particular. Both dealt with issues concerning science. Both raised questions involving news literacy and journalistic responsibility. Both received a good number of comments, from all viewpoints.
One, a meme, focused on listening to those with whom you disagree. That one was a simple statement, and the comments might foster additional story angles. Besides, it is good journalistic practice.
I had not heard of the other post’s focus before: that the Earth’s climate change is a natural result of changes in our solar orbit.
Naturally, I had to check it out.
Read MoreNew Quick Tips listing can help provide
solutions, guides to media issues
Working on a sensitive story? Looking to add new ethical guidelines to help students deal with new technology? Want to finalize the process to use if students wish to run political ads or endorsements?
Quick Tips can help with ethical guidelines supported by reasoning and staff manual procedures to reach outcomes you desire.
If you or your students have suggestions to add to our list, please contact SPRC Director Lori Keekley.
This is our latest Quick Tips list. We hope you find its points useful.
Each newly posted QT has a short annotation and a link to the materials. Each addition also has links for more depth and related content.
To see a list of already posted Quick Tips, please go here.
Read MoreA new school year, a new staff – make sure your staff is well informed
by Cyndi Hyatt
By now we all have fallen into the rhythm of another academic year. With the advent of new staffs, new ideas and maybe new procedures it’s also good to pause and reflect.
What have you done to make sure your staff, especially the rookies, is trained in more than how to write copy, conduct an interview or edit a package?
Student journalists are eager to cover what’s news but they need to be armed with the necessary tools, skills and knowledge BEFORE the story is filed.
Read MoreBe relentless and read the fine print
by Stan Zoller, MJE
Sometime in its advertising history, Hewlett-Packard, now known simply as H-P because people were in too much of a hurry to spell the entire name out, had a campaign that touted its corporate innovation.
Quite simply, all it said was “At Hewlett-Packard, we never stop saying ‘What If. “
The concept was their product development staffs were always looking for ways to improve technology by taking chances and asking what would happen ‘if’ they did something different.
The approach might also work well for journalists in their dogged pursuits of accurate and verifiable information.
At the 2009 JEA convention in Washington, D.C., keynote speaker Jackie Spinner, then a Washington Post reporter, said “the problem with the American media is that it’s more concerned about getting it first than getting it right.”
The unfortunate reality in many cases that is still the case. It’s not unusual for a news organization to post information on social media and within minutes, post an update that corrects a previous post.
An obvious way to avoid this is to fact check and verify before posting a story. However, to really add to the basic information, follow H-P’s lead and ask “what if” about your information. In other words, go beyond the basic information at hand.
This can be true when using public records. Despite the fact public agencies are required to adhere to open meetings laws, some will go out of their way to avoid meeting the full intent of the law. School districts seem to be the biggest culprits of this.
Effective deconstruction of materials received through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request entails that journalists – whether students or professional – understand the breadth of their state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as well as the appeal process.
I filed two recent FOI requests using Illinois’ FOIA and have found by asking “what if” I have been able to garner additional information.
The first case involves a school district that heavily redacted information without sufficient explanation for the redaction. A second FOI request resulted in a similar situation. Rather than accept the district’s response, I filed for a review with the Pubic Access Counselor (PAC) in the Illinois Attorney General’s office.
They agreed to investigate my query and are in the process of weighing the district’s response. However, the district’s response about the confiscation of the student newspaper dropped more than a subtle hint that the issue was not, in fact, a journalism situation, but likely a personnel and/or personality conflict.
The district’s response also touted student confidentiality, something that was not part of my original two FOI requests. What the district seems to have done was fine-tooth combed the allowable exemptions allowed by the Illinois FOIA. Working with community advocacy attorneys, I thought an additional explanation was due, which led to the filing with the Attorney General’s PAC. Quite simply, it was a matter of asking “what if.”
Another situation, which unfolded last week, involved the use of the FOIA to find out why a village trustee in my hometown was trying to gauge interest in a proposed bill that would allow recreational use of marijuana in Illinois. By gathering emails on the topic, I was able to determine that he had not been transparent in his social media posts, as well as phone calls and emails to me.
This was revealed in a blog I posted, which drew swift reaction, including one from an attorney who said the village had violated the Illinois FOIA by providing me with information that should have been withheld because of the exemptions in the FOIA.
Undaunted, I checked with attorneys who told me that I was right (always a good feeling) and that exemptions are voluntary. I posted that information, to which he responded, “that’s right.”
As Caesar allegedly said, “Veni, vidi, vici” – I came, I saw, I conquered. While conquering may seem a bit overstated, the bottom line is by utilizing resources and understanding the nuances of the law, I was able to (at least hopefully) protect the public’s right to know.
Is it a lot of work? Yes. Using the FOIA or asking for support from the SPLC or local advocacy attorneys may rattle your administration, but as journalism educators we have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure our student journalists seek the truth and report it using the legal and ethical tools available.
Student journalists need to understand the ramifications of under reporting as well as the rewards of not just getting it first, but also getting it right.
Which in many cases means not only using resources available to them, but also learning to ask, ‘what if?”
Read MoreDealing with unwanted, forced prior review? QT26
by John Bowen, MJE
JEA historically has opposed prior review of student media by school officials.
That opposition continues.
Prior review leads only to control, active censorship and iis the first step toward the spread of fake news and less than complete disinformation.
Students and advisers, though, may have no immediate choice but to be under prior review by school officials.
The question then becomes what might the Scholastic Press Rights Committee recommend for consideration until adviser and students, and maybe school officials, create a way to trust and empower student decision-making and civic engagement as designated public forums.
Consider these possibilities:
As journalism teachers we know our students learn more when they make content choices. Prior review and restraint do not teach students to produce higher quality journalism or to become more journalistically responsible.
As journalism teachers we know the only way to teach students to take responsibility for their decisions is to train them and for that responsibility.
As journalism teachers we know democracy depends on students who understand all voices have a right to be heard and have a voice in their school and community.
Thus, to help students achieve professional standards, journalism educators should consider the following process:
- Encourage transparency about who determines the content of a student publication by alerting readers and viewers when student media are subject to prior review and restraint;
- Advocate for the educational benefits of student press freedom if student media are subject to prior review or restraint;
- Provide students with access to sources of professional advice outside the school for issues they need to address;
- Attempt to follow and support JEA’s Adviser Code of Ethics;
- Provide students with tools that include adequate knowledge and resources to successfully carry out their work. By using these tools, students build trust in the learning process and the theories on which it is based;
- Encourage students to seek multiple points of view and to explore a variety of credible sources in their reporting and decision-making;
- Coach instead of making decisions, modeli the value of the learning process and demonstrate the trust we place in our educational system;
- Empower students to understand what journalistic responsibility requires and how to achieve credible journalism where prior review and restraint are not necessary;
- Model a professional newsroom atmosphere where students share in and take responsibility for their work. In so doing, scholastic journalists increase dialogue and help ensure civic engagement;
- Use peer editing to encourage student interaction, analysis and problem solving;
- Instruct students about civic engagement and journalism’s role in maintaining and protecting our democratic heritage;
- Showcase student media where the dissemination of information is unfiltered by prior review and restraint so the school’s various communities receive accurate, truthful and complete information.
While we know advisers will make decisions regarding prior review and other educational issues based on what they believe they can support philosophically, the SPRC reiterates its strong rejection of prior review, and hence prior restraint, as tools in the educational process.
Even though we offer tQuick Tip below as a temporary measure for those who face prior review or have no choice about prior review, this process is not a pathway to building stronger student media and ultimately more engaged citizens.
Quick Tips: When prior review is your only choice
Guideline: While students and advisers, who have to operate under prior review, work toward changing that situation, they should also believe in, and support, those who practice journalism as a designated public forum.
Question: What policies should you negotiate when you are stuck with prior review?
Key points/action: JEA historically has – and does – oppose prior review by school officials. It is an unacceptable practice with no educational value. Prior review only leads to control, active censorship and the first steps toward fake news and less than complete disinformation.
It is possible, though, students and advisers have no immediate choice but to be under prior review by school officials.
The question then becomes what the SPRC would recommend until adviser, students and school officials, provide all involved (students, advisers, faculty, administrators, school board and communities) with a better learning environment than prior review.
Stance: While students and advisers work toward a no prior review goal, we would suggest these steps toward an alternative:
- Student media are identified and practice as designated public forums for student expression where student editors and staff make all final decisions of content.
- Before publishing or posting pages/broadcast/web materials, administrators have the length of a school day (the day they are given materials) to review content and to ask questions. Materials should be given in a timely manner.
- All content must return to students’ hands at the end of the day, on schedule, for publication.
- If administrators/school officials have questions, they may request meeting time within that day, which will not delay publication.
- School officials may comment, ask questions or request changes.
- All final decisions remain with the student journalists as they meet their deadlines. They can choose to heed school officials requests or suggestions or go with content as it was.
Reasoning/suggestions: If review is to help students learn and to identify areas of administrative concern rather than content control, this process should provide adequate opportunity for discussion and collaboration – and keep the journalistic process on track.
Student critical thinking, decision-making and application of learning objectives across the school’s mission remain intact, creating time for a more permanent forum practice to be forged.
Resources: SPRC
• JEA’s Adviser Code of Ethics
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