Following – and creating –
New Voices in the land
New Voices campaigns, inspired by the successful John Wall New Voices Act of North Dakota, continue to grow across the country.So far, five states have established campaigns and many more are in discussions. Those states are:
New Voices of Minnesota
New Voices of Maryland
New Voices of New Jersey
New Voices of Illinois
New Voices of Michigan
In other legislative news, scholastic journalism supporters in Washington have talked with a potential Republican sponsor in Washington as they work toward proposing new legislation. Wisconsin is also working on legislation but does not have a digital site yet.
Read More
Adviser will have to OK anonymous sources,
school board cites journalism standards
Student media advisers at Northern Highlands High School in New Jersey must now give prior permission for student journalists to grant anonymity to a source according to a revised policy the board of education adopted April 28.
The criteria an adviser might have to determine, according to an article at NorthJersey.com, consists of “the credibility, motivation and bias” of sources in “accordance with generally accepted journalistic standards.”
The adviser must also know the name, contact information, background and connection to the story. The NorthJersey.com report also noted the adviser, “except as required by law,” could not reveal the identity of an anonymous source to the faculty, the administration or board of education.
While the journalistic standards cited were not defined, the use of unnamed sources can raise ethical questions. Generally, it is the students who raise these questions and make the decision whether to grant anonymity. Journalism editors granting anonymity under certain circumstances has historical precedent from Watergate to other instances where a source’s identity might need protection.
And, if student media is truly designed to be a learning experience and forum for student expression where students make all decisions of content, that should be students’ decision.
Events that led up to policy changes in student media involved the use of unnamed sources dealing with personnel issues.
Frank LoMonte, Executive Director of the Student Press Law Center, quoted in the NorthJersey.com story, said, “The practical result will be banning anonymous sources, particularly in stories reflecting negatively on the school district, since no employee of the school will want to come forward and say that she vouches for the credibility of a source leaking damaging information about her supervisors.”
Standard practice, LoMonte said, would not involve the adviser.
In ethical guidelines the SPRC endorses, students would make the final decisions whether to permit sources to be anonymous.
The SPRC knows of no scholastic media program in which the adviser would make that decision.
Administrators at the school and superintendent levels supported the board decision in comments, NorthJersey.com reported.
“We believe this policy and regulation fully support our school-sponsored publications, that they will continue to be recognized as award-winning models of excellence,” board of education Barbara Garand is quoted
Additional coverage of the sequence of events at Northern Highlands High School:
• New Jersey adviser resigns from position after censorship controversy
• Formerly censored article published in New Jersey newspaper after school board and principal give OK
• New Jersey school board will vote Monday whether to uphold principal’s censorship
• After stalling vote, New Jersey high school’s publication policy remains unclear
•
Facing takedown demands requires
thoughtful planning of guidelines
Because student media takedown demands continue to grow and the JEA listserv recently discussed issues that could be involved in information takedown, JEA’s Scholastic Press Rights Committee reposts guidelines to assist students and their advisers who face these requests.
We agree with the Student Press Law Center’s Executive Director Frank LoMonte who said the SPLC has shied away from telling people a ”right way” to handle takedown requests, leaving the decision to their editorial discretion.
So, instead of a single guideline, we offer this set of resources to help students make informed choices.
In all situations, we recommend the SPLC’s existing work on the subject. We hope these guidelines will offer a roadmap if your students face takedown decisions.
Even more importantly, we believe in establishing guidelines to evaluate information before it is posted: Put Up recommendations might prevent facing unsatisfactory decisions later because a 15-year-old did not consider the implications of an ill-chosen comment or questionable image.
We urge advisers to train student reporters to verify information and use credible and reliable sources as more effective approach than taking down content.
If students decide information must come down, this resource from The Poynter Institute suggests thoughtful alternatives to just taking something down.
Below is a model ethics-staff manual statement, as part of our Foundations of Journalism policy-ethics-staff manual package. Such a statement or one similar, should be part of student media’s ethical guidelines and staff manuals.
Takedown requests
Ethical guidelines
Journalists may be asked to remove online content for any number of reasons. Just because content is unpopular or controversial does not mean a media staff should comply with such requests. When journalists meet their goal of producing consistent, responsible journalism, they likely will choose to leave the content in question online even in the face of criticism.
All media – including student media – provide a historical record of issues, events and comments. As such, content should not be changed unless there are unusual circumstances.
Staff manual process
Content should not be removed unless the student editorial board determines it is factually inaccurate or was otherwise factually, legally deficient at the time of publication. The staff manual should provide a checklist or guide students can use to determine whether a takedown request has merit.
Suggestions
• In some cases, student editors may take down a story because they determine the content warrants a one-time exception (such as fabrication or to protect a source).
• Reporters may elect to do a follow-up story.
• If student editors choose to remove content, they should publish a note on the site explaining when and why the content was removed.
• Takedown criteria should be outlined and explained in the staff manual.
• Create guidelines and procedures to ensure students only post information and images they feel meet standards of responsible journalism: Put Up guidelines.
Resources
5 Ways News Organizations Respond to ‘Unpublishing’ Requests, The Poynter Institute
Takedown Demands: Here is a Roadmap of Choices, Rationale, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Respond to Takedown Demands, Student Press Law Center
Setting Criteria Before the Requests Come, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
10 Steps to a Put-Up Policy, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee
Audio: Takedown Requests, JEA Scholastic Press Rights Committee, Press Rights Minute
Fighting censorship?
Here are ideas that can help
Because so many advisers have talked about prior review situations lately, and how to handle them, her is a link to an Student Press Law Center-Newspaper Association of America Foundation project that might offer some help.
Titled Press Freedom in Practice, besides reviewing basics of press law, it highlights adviser stories about how they overcame issues like prior review and other forms of censorship.
Sections of the pamphlet include strategies for success that include communication, setting high standards for students, letting students lead the fight against censorship and identifying allies in the fight.
We hope to update the project during the next year.
For additional materials, look here.
Read More
Thinking of reporting sex-related issues?
Some thoughts on handling controversy
At least two schools this winter have had issues with reporting about sex. Newbury Park High, California, and Rochester, Michigan, experienced complaints not only about the content but about images used in their coverage.
An SPLC article published March 20 looks at both events and the resulting concerns, and is worth your reading. The article also contains important links to additional information.
Update: Since this blog was posted a little over an hour ago, add one more controversial reporting incident at Fauquier High School in Virginia.
For additional information about handling controversy, see:
• Reporting controversy requires establish a sound process
• A high school news advisers’ preemptive trouble-shooting guide
• Use anonymous sources with care
• Verification before publication prevents many issues
• Practice sensitivity in your reporting