To help us prepare for scholastic journalism’s new era, let’s look at the 10 roles exercise recently outlined by the Center for Scholastic Journalism. Instead of thinking of the roles in terms of print media, let’s project the roles into the future and discuss them in terms of scholastic media’s use of social media.

And, since no one has definite answers for these uses, let’s look at potential uses in terms of questions  for future discussion.

• Should scholastic media be involved in branding? If we are heavily involved in branding are we, by nature of the media, becoming more interested in advertising and public relations than objective reporting?

• What is the best role in student media for social media: Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Google groups  etc)? It is branding? Is it letting our audiences know what we do doing and what to expect? Is it reporting breaking informtion? Is it some combination? What are the plusses and minuses of each in terms of mission, role legal standards and ethics? You might take a look at the issues raised by Mike Wise, sports commentator of radio and The Washington Post when he knowingly posted false information on his Twitter site. Later, he railed at those who did not factcheck. That may be, but what is his responsibility? Today The Post suspended Wise for a month, Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio reported Wise told his morning radio audience. Poynter covered the event, including reference to the Post’s ombudsman’s comments.

• What is your forum role for online media? Should your students moderate comments or allow them at all? Should they be limited to just students?  From the CSJ blog: “Remember, if your existing letters policy says, in the first sentence, you are a forum and encourage letters (comment) but in the next sentence says you will edit for length and clarity, or moderate for this and that, are you really being “open”? Even if you add the phrase “without changing the meaning,” is that possible to do? If I wrote an 800-word letter and you cut it to 400, even if YOU don’t think you changed my meaning, I’ll bet I would think you did. And if the policy says you will edit for “good taste” or even correct mistakes, have you limited my expression?” Or, is there a developing standard that will allow the forum but still enable free expression?

• If we look to use social media for coverage, what kind of story works best? Worst? What kind of story (assuming your students have already outlined their roles using the framework provided by the CSJblog) is most crucial to the role of the medium?

• Can promotion and objective coverage realistically come from the same use of a single social media outlet (Twitter, Facebook)? Should our students mix opinion and objective reporting using the same outlet?

•It has been said that reporting on the web is probably not the place for depth and longform reporting. What evidence supports this? Can we find evidence that depth and longform flourish on the web? An excellent read from Nieman Journalism Lab suggests some dangers of thinking in terms of “quick find” terms on news searches like Google News and others.

• What is optimal length for web stories? Why? Practioners do not all agree that short (someone suggested 250 words) is better? Take a look at respectied news websites.

• In using social media, what are the roles for breaking news, verification and perspective. Are these inherently contradictory? Should we view one as more important than others? How should each come across in our teaching?

We’d love to see a discussion get started here, on JEA’s listserv, on JEA’s Digital Media site or on any other site open to all advisers.

I know this is not directly related to scholastic journalism, but in a way it is.

As scholastic media – online and print – strive to find models of what they want to emulate, they of course look to the commercial media (I have reasons for not grouping them all under the guise of professional).

This post by David Zurawik makes excellent observations about some forms of  ”journalism,” most recently exemplified by ESPN’s LeBron James infotainment last night.

I am not recommending this because I am from Cleveland but because the author makes relevant points about journalistic credibility.

LeBron is gone; let’s not send journalistic integrity with him, at any level.

Hype is not what scholastic journalism needs; real leadership through digging and reporting is.

The Kansas City Start ran an article today about how school yearbooks in the area handle death coverage. It is well worth reading – and discussing – before the situation occurs.

The article examines the wide range of thought that goes into deciding how, or whether, reporting death is an integral part of scholastic journalism.

A tip of the hat to Larisa Capodieci for tweeting this article about the difficult decision of handling death – in newspapers or yearbooks.

News about the Haiti earthquake dominated the media today, and some scholastic journalists are trying to find ways to report the devastation and loss of life.

Questions they should consider include:

• How can we localize and show readers relevance? That should be among the first concerns. What is the best way to bring the impact of the story to the readers’ community? Has anyone been to Haiti? Have family there? Are local groups involved in relief efforts? Has anyone local survived anything similar? What is the most effective way to report the situation? Commentary on the tragedy? A call to action? Reporting the issues so the reality of the situation becomes the focus? Who will become the best sources? The most credible sources? The most timely sources? Who could be primary sources so reporters are not just rehashing cnn.com or Time magazine? Are there money-raising scams surrounding relief efforts? How can readers recognize and avoid them?

• What legal issues could create problems? How can we avoid using copyrighted images with stories? What would be good resources for images? If the student publication is Web-based, to whom can students link? What are reliable resources? Publications with a subscription to MCT Campus might have a distinct advantage. What about using flash graphics or other multimedia coverage? What is the best way to do the reporting legally?

• Are there ethical considerations about what to show and print? This certainly will become an issue as more commercial media show images of bodies and devastation. What should scholastic media show and why? Assuming you can use such images with permission, will you have discussed the effects of gruesome photos? Why use them? Should your audiences be warned?

We raise these issues not to flash the red light of decision-making restraint but rather to enable the green light of ethical decisions. If your students decide such localized and relevant reporting is justified, we encourage them to do so thoroughly and with compassion.

Whatever steps they take to decide what to publish or broadcast, their decisions need to be rooted in long traditions of journalistic excellence, of publishing a story that affects their community and enables audience involvement.

That’s doing it the right way.

As we’ve tried to emphasize in the last several posts, prior review is not a valid or workable educational practice. It betrays the trust of the audience (as well as that of student journalists and their advisers) and negates any concept of students taking responsibility for what they write.

Let’s see if we can build some common ground to lessen the need for prior review, which we have seen lately undermines the whole educational process.

Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel call this approach the science of reporting.

Together, these points, say the authors, lead to the discipline of verification, meaning published material is accurate, truthful and in context.

Paired with responsible journalism, as defined by JEA and outlined in an earlier post, Kovach and Rosenstiel’s verification of information and science of reporting provide a framework for scholastic journalism without prior review.

Given the outrageous examples of recent prior review, isn’t it time to give student journalists a chance to prove good journalism can and will occur without review?

In their book, The Elements of Journalism, they outline five points for this concept:

• Never add anything that was not there: This requires solid reporting and a variety of credible sources.

• Never deceive the audience: This requires building a framework of trust with your audiences and ties to the next point.

• Be as transparent as possible about methods and motive: It allows the audience to judge the validity of the information, the process by which it was gathered and the motives and biases of the journalists providing it, the authors say.

• Rely on your own original reporting: Reporters who can do their own work, with encouragement and support from school officials and advisers will produce  stronger, more complete reporting. This might even mean turning off the Internet filters so they can have unfiltered access to information and sources.

• Exercise humility: Journalists should be humble about their own skills as well as what they see and hear from sources. This reinforces the need to know perspective on stories as well as being open-minded to story-changing resources.

Recent examples of prior review leading to censorship clearly show we must find a way to encourage students practice what they are taught. We hope The Elements of Journalism can help pave the way.

As school begins, I can’t help but be excited about the coming year for my students.

Our newspaper, The Smoky Hill Express, has great plans to abandon the usual scholastic soft coverage of clubs and newsletter events and tackle more important news this year. In our budget are plans for features on alcohol sales to minors, our special ed students, and eating disorders.

Our yearbook, The Smoky Hill Summit, is coming off a great content year that included same-sex couples, teen pregnancy, drug use, and overcoming obstacles like prior arrests and childhood illnesses.

Every year, my kids are geeked and ready to spread their reporting wings and see how they can tell the story better than they did the year before.

But, I know not every adviser and staff share our enthusiasm. Far too many scholastic publications face pressure to stay away from these “hard” topics. And, while many advisers and staffs don’t realize it, this pressure is thinly veiled censorship.

Whenever an agent of the government – any paid employee of the public school system – tries to control the content of a student publication, either by explicit rule or casual pressure, this control is censorship.

Far too often, I hear student reporters tell me, “We could never cover that in our book or paper.”

If your publication is truly a student-run publication, then the students alone control the content decisions for that publication. Anything less is censorship.

So, as your staffs begin their training, budgeting, and reporting, make sure they know their rights. Students do not have to cave to the pressure of their administrators to produce only soft, light coverage. There is no “off-limit” topic for your students, and every story can be reported responsibly and well.

Some resources for you in this endeavor can be found on the Scholastic Press Rights Commission home page at www.jeapressrights.org and the Student Press Law Center at www.splc.org.

Carrie Faust, MJE