The role of student media
Ethical guidelines
Journalists often are considered mirrors on society. As such, journalism should reflect the community in which it is produced. In order to also maintain their watchdog function, journalists must also be able to act as candles that illuminate and challenge a community’s values and preconceptions. Monitoring the status quo and the powers that be is one way journalists can both reflect and challenge their communities. This journalistic practice helps maintain the free and accurate flow of information.
Additionally, student media should be independent from their school’s public relations arm. The purpose of student media is to report school and community issues and events. Consequently, the purpose of student media is not to protect the image of the school or district.
These roles are premised on the idea that student media can operate in an independent manner.
JEA strongly rejects both prior review and restraint as tools in the education process and agrees with other national journalism education groups that no valid educational justification exists for prior review of scholastic media.
Prior review and prior restraint of student media content by school officials are weapons in the arsenal of censorship. Not only do they limit student learning and application, but they also restrict student critical thinking and analysis.
- Prior review occurs when school administrators – or anyone in a position of authority outside the editorial staff – demands to read, view or approve content prior to publication and/or distribution. JEA includes review, but not demanding change, as part of the adviser’s role.
- Prior restraint happens when anyone not on the student staff – often after they have read material (prior review) – requires pre-distribution changes to inhibit, ban or restrain content before release to the audience.
Free expression, supported by journalistic responsibility, empowers students to exercise their civic engagement and responsibility as they practice the principles of a free, open democracy.
Staff manual process
A media-level editorial policy/guideline should designate student media as public forums for student expression in which students make all final decisions of content without review from school officials.
Student journalists must be attuned to the institutions, people and issues that most affect their readers: students. By engaging with this community, actively looking for stories and becoming part of the institutional fabric of their schools, student journalists will be prepared to recognize which stories will reflect and challenge their community.
Students should define this distinct role in their school community and should highlight the difference between their role and that of the school’s public relations department.
Suggestions
• Persuade school officials to adopt or endorse a policy that designates student media as public forums for student expression in which students make all final decisions of content without prior review.
• Develop principles and procedures that uphold scholastic media as designated public forums practicing professional and ethical standards.
• Be the eyes and ears for readers. What information should they know but aren’t likely to seek on their own?
• Assign beats to represent the most important topics, institutions and people in the community. Keeping tabs on the same topic throughout the year will help students develop a keen nose for news and will help them understand the unique dynamics at play in their community.
• Include entrepreneurial assignments that allow students to explore key issues and events in the communities, expanding their eyes and ears for news.
• Address strategies that help reporters remain detached from stories they cover in their own communities. The staff manual should address strategies for situations when students are too entrenched in the community to cover it in an ethically sound manner.
• Elaborate the specific role of student media in the community and how this role differs from the school’s public relations functions.
• Encourage an open-door policy and open line of communication between editors and administrators, but don’t allow student media to serve as an extension of the district public relations department.
• Ensure coherent and complete coverage of events, issues and people provides evidence of the student media program’s commitment to professional standards.
How administrators can help
Strong strategies exist to help administrators support quality journalism programs. These include:
• Working with advisers and students to develop public forum policies
• Hiring qualified advisers and journalism teachers
• Working with students cooperatively to be good sources for stories
• Building trust in the learning and communication process in a way that also reduces liability concerns of the school system
• Offering constructive feedback after each publication or airing
• Increasing dialogue among school staff and students, thus encouraging outlets of expression that strengthen school safety( • Expanding school and community understanding and appreciation of the value of free, journalistically responsible, student media
• Providing necessary resources to support and maintain student media programs, including financial support, master schedule preferences, development opportunities and time.
JEA condemns prior review because it
• Contradicts the school’s responsibility to teach and maintain, through example, the principles of democracy
• Enables school administrators, who are government officials, to decide in advance what people will read or know. Such officials are potential newsmakers, and their involvement with the news-making process interferes with the public’s right to know
• Creates the possibility of viewpoint discrimination, undermining the marketplace of ideas and all pretext of responsible journalism
• Leads to self-censorship, the most chilling and pervasive form of censorship. Such fear eliminates any chance of critical thinking, decision-making or respect for the opinions of others
• Stifles growth so students do not mature into thinking, discerning, effective contributing citizens in the democracy
• Impairs the ability of a school’s communities to discern the truth about the school and the accuracy of information citizens need to make logical decisions and cast intelligent votes
• Negates the educational value of a trained, professionally active adviser and teacher working with students in a counseling, learning environment. Prior review simply makes the teacher an accessory, as if what is taught really doesn’t matter.
Instead, we believe
• Rights, not authority and discipline, prepare students for roles in a democracy as thinking, discerning, contributing citizens
• Student media best serves their communities when they are editorially independent and present truthful and accurate information
• Student media are safe and peaceful places a for dissemination of ideas, and with ideas there is no clear right or wrong
• Ultimate civic engagement and involvement only occur where students learn that they can practice constitutional guarantees
• Responsible journalism occurs when a qualified faculty adviser, clear publications policies and professionally oriented journalism curriculum exist
• Prior review interferes with the dynamic process of learning. Such review and censorship are the last resort of an educational system failing its present and future citizens.
Resources
Journalism Education Association Statement on Prior Review
Statements to Accompany JEA’s Definitions of Prior Review and Restraint, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Lesson: Crafting the Argument, Journalism Education Association
Questions for Those Who Prior Review, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Building a Climate of Trust Can Ease Prior Review, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Seeking a Cure for the Hazelwood Blues: A Call to Action, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Audio: Positive Administrator Relations, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee, Press Rights Minute
Audio: 10 Tips for Dealing With Censorship, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee, Press Rights Minute
Return to sitemap.
Read More
Does your mother love you: Get three sources;
Is the Verification Handbook useful: Check it out
As scholastic media and their advisers move more to online media and use more social media as a reporting tool, verification remains a critical issue.
Enter the Verification Handbook, a product of Poynter’s Craig Silverman and American Copy Editors Society (ACES) Merrill Perlman.
Subtitled “A definitive guide to verifying digital content for emergency coverage” it comes across as a thorough, easy to use and authoritative tool for our students to use as they grow into digital and social media reporting.
Read MoreAccountability in journalism: What does it mean for student journalists?
Part of JEA’s Scholastic Press Rights Commission’s Constitution Day lessons and activity package:
LESSON PLAN: Quick hits: questions for online discussion, inclusion in staff policies: The buzzword accountability. What does it mean?
In this lesson, students will discuss three questions:
• For what should journalists (commercial and scholastic) be accountable?
• How do we define accountable?
• How can we convince others this is the best definition?
The discussion will lead toward the development of positions and process for a staff manual
Summative evaluation tool: Student created product
Primary Common Core: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.11-12.5b
Secondary Common Core Standard(s) Addressed: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.4
21st Century Skills Incorporated: Critical thinking, collaboration
Supplies, Technology, Other Materials Needed: Handouts, software for desktop publishing (online or computer installed), examples of magazines, yearbooks and newspapers
Length of the Lesson: 45 minutes
Evaluation tools:
Appropriate for Grades: 9-12
Created by: John Bowen, MJE
Brief description of lesson:
In answering the questions, students will read this online article:
• Trustworthy journalism in a fact-checking-free world
http://craigconnects.org/2013/07/trustworthy-journalism-in-a-fact-checking-free-world.html#.UfGLjCOf7EM.twitter
They will also note this question from the article as a focal point of their work:
“Any news outlet that wants to succeed must be trustworthy, that is, accountable.”
Lesson details:
Break students into small groups and have the students discuss these questions:
• How would you define responsibility in terms of scholastic journalism?
• For what journalists be accountable?
• How should journalists define accountability?
• How should scholastic journalists define accountability?
The whole class will discussion each group’s definitions and positions and work to reach agreement.
As they do this, they will develop a position statement and a process to express the position for their staff manual.
Hints for points they could raise:
–relevance
–context
–perspective
–attribution
–ethics
–attribution
–accuracy
–truth
–facts
–diverse views
–complete
–thorough
–coherent
Read More
Guidelines, recommendations for advisers facing prior review
Based on an increase in the number of of prior review incidents and administrative attacks on advisers, we are reposting this information.
At the spring 2010 Portland JEA/NSPA convention, JEA’s board passed a definition of prior review and prior restraint. The SPLC also recently endorsed the statement.
At the time, the Press Right Commission was directed to design a recommended process and guidelines on how advisers might handle prior review if faced with it. Below you will find those guidelines and process along with links to supporting philosophy and resources. We welcome your input.
While we know advisers will make decisions regarding prior review and other educational issues based on what they believe they can best support philosophically, JEA reiterates its strong rejection of prior review, and hence prior restraint, as a tool in the educational process. With that belief, we feel an obligation to help advisers faced with this situation.
Statements to accompany JEA’s definitions of prior review and restraint:
As journalism teachers, we know our students learn more when they make publication choices and that prior review or restraint do not teach students to produce higher quality journalism.
As journalism teachers, we know the only way to teach students to take responsibility for their decisions is to give them the responsibility to make those decisions freely.
As journalism teachers, we know democracy depends on students understanding all voices have a right to be heard and knowing they have a voice in their school and community.
Thus, to help students achieve work that is up to 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 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;
• Provide students with tools that include adequate knowledge and resources to successfully carry out their work. By using these tools, we 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 make requirements or demands thus modeling the value of the learning process and demonstrating the trust we place in our educational system;
• Empower students to know the difference between sound and unsound journalism and how to counsel their peers about potential dangers;
• Model a professional newsroom atmosphere where students share in and take responsibility for their work. In so doing, we increase dialogue and help ensure civic and journalistic responsibility;
• 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.
Recommended process if facing prior review, restraint
If, after employing the above techniques, student journalists still object to changes an adviser discusses, the following describes a process to handle potential disagreement:
1. Adviser and students disagree about content for publication.
2. Adviser and students discuss all angles of the disagreement; they try to find common ground.
3. The adviser and students decide if the disagreement is based on an ethical issue or a legal one.
4. If violations of libel, obscenity, unwarranted invasion of privacy, copyright infringement or material disruption of the school process are likely at stake, the adviser urges students to get advice of the Student Press Law Center or reliable legal resource. Not just any school lawyer or administrator will do. The resource, which could include non-live information, must be reputable for scholastic media. The phrase “unprotected speech” might not be enough because Hazelwood so muddied the concept.
5. If the disagreement is not over a legal consideration, the adviser urges students to consider the “red light” or similar questions raised by The Poynter Institute to see how various stakeholders might react if the material is published. Students see and consider the possible outcomes of publication and discuss with the adviser ramifications of their actions.
6. Adviser and students continue to discuss and explore alternative approaches until they reach a point of no possible agreement.
7. This process fulfills the adviser’s commitment to advise, not to make or require decisions, and to be cognizant of his/her responsibilities to school and students.
The Journalism Education Association reiterates its position that prior review and prior restraint violate its Adviser Code of Ethics and educational philosophy.
Additional links and resources:
• 10 Tips for Covering Controversial Subjects from the press rights commission website
• Just this once
• JEA’s Adviser Code of Ethics from the commission blog. Scroll to the bottom
• Questions to ask those who would prior review
• JEA’s statement on prior review from the JEA website
• Results of a Master’s study on prior review and publication awards from the commission’s website
• Resources from the press rights commission on developing professional standards from press rights website
• NSPA Model Code of Ethics for student journalists from NSPA’s website
Read More
Prior review
At the spring Portland JEA/NSPA convention, JEA’s board passed a statement defining prior review and prior restraint. The SPLC also recently endorsed the statement.
At the time, the Press Right Commission was directed to design a recommended process and guidelines on how advisers might handle prior review if faced with it. Below you will fine those guidelines and process along with links to supporting philosophy and resources. We welcome your input.
While we know advisers will make decisions regarding prior review and other educational issues based on what they believe they can best support philosophically, JEA reiterates its strong rejection of prior review, and hence prior restraint, as a tool in the educational process. With that belief, we feel an obligation to help advisers faced with this situation.
Statements to accompany JEA’s definitions of prior review and restraint:
As journalism teachers, we know our students learn more when they make publication choices and that prior review or restraint do not teach students to produce higher quality journalism.
As journalism teachers, we know the only way to teach students to take responsibility for their decisions is to give them the responsibility to make those decisions freely.
As journalism teachers, we know democracy depends on students understanding all voices have a right to be heard and knowing they have a voice in their school and community.
Thus, to help students achieve work that is up to 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 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;
• Provide students with tools that include adequate knowledge and resources to successfully carry out their work. By using these tools, we 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 make requirements or demands thus modeling the value of the learning process and demonstrating the trust we place in our educational system;
• Empower students to know the difference between sound and unsound journalism and how to counsel their peers about potential dangers;
• Model a professional newsroom atmosphere where students share in and take responsibility for their work. In so doing, we increase dialogue and help ensure civic and journalistic responsibility;
• 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.
Recommended process if facing prior review, restraint
If, after employing the above techniques, student journalists still object to changes an adviser discusses, the following describes a process to handle potential disagreement:
1. Adviser and students disagree about content for publication.
2. Adviser and students discuss all angles of the disagreement; they try to find common ground.
3. The adviser and students decide if the disagreement is based on an ethical issue or a legal one.
4. If violations of libel, obscenity, unwarranted invasion of privacy, copyright infringement or material disruption of the school process are likely at stake, the adviser urges students to get advice of the Student Press Law Center or reliable legal resource. Not just any school lawyer or administrator will do. The resource, which could include non-live information, must be reputable for scholastic media. The phrase “unprotected speech” might not be enough because Hazelwood so muddied the concept.
5. If the disagreement is not over a legal consideration, the adviser urges students to consider the “red light”-“green light” or similar questions raised by The Poynter Institute to see how various stakeholders might react if the material is published. Students see and consider the possible outcomes of publication and discuss with the adviser ramifications of their actions.
6. Adviser and students continue to discuss and explore alternative approaches until they reach a point of no possible agreement.
7. This process fulfills the adviser’s commitment to advise, not to make or require decisions, and to be cognizant of his/her responsibilities to school and students.
The Journalism Education Association reiterates its position that prior review and prior restraint violate its Adviser Code of Ethics and educational philosophy.
Additional links and resources:
• 10 Tips for Covering Controversial Subjects from the press rights commission website
• Questions advisers should ask those who want to implement prior review from commission blog
• JEA’s Adviser Code of Ethics from the commission blog. Scroll to the bottom
• JEA’s statement on prior review from the JEA website
• Results of a Master’s study on prior review and publication awards from the commission’s website
• Resources from the press rights commission on developing professional standards from press rights website
• NSPA Model Code of Ethics for student journalists from NSPA’s website
Read More