If it looks and acts like a cheerleader, it shouldn’t end up being a student news outlet.

At least that’s the view presented in the Center for Scholastic Journalism’s latest post, one in a series of decision-making choices about possible roles for student media. Writing a mission statement using this process is something students should consider as they approach each new year.

“So, in developing the mission and applying it through the year,” the post states, “consider putting ‘building morale’ a ways down the list of media role priorities — not because you’re going to be the voice of gloom and doom and whining, but because you want to tell as many sides as you can of your stories and not just stress the positives.”

A morale builder also should not be how your news publication’s social media comes across.

This particular role seems to be growing with the use of Twitter and Facebook to advertise the student medium and its content.

As we examine our potential roles, in “legacy” as well as “new” media, we need to discuss with our students whether the PR and news roles need to be clearly separated in any use of social media.

I worry that scholastic media is becoming more and more PR-oriented. One, I have concerns that combining the roles makes it difficult for our audiences to tell the difference between promotion and news; and, two, not clearly separating the two roles works against scholastic media when coverage of controversial or sensitive subjects are reported.

For another take on the topic, see a Poynter Making Sense of News piece published Aug. 20 (scroll down one or two posts).

Those interested in a bit of real life government in action can follow the introduction of the Nebraska free expression legislation on Twitter at #LB898.

Follow along and see what is happening compared to legislation efforts in other states by comparing Nebraska’s bill with those of other states by using the SPLC library.

Nebraska’s bill can be seen at

http://www.netnebraska.org/publicmedia/capitol.html , hearing room #1525.

Let’s play Devil’s Advocate.

Let’s start with the premise that scholastic media’s use of Twitter can cause confusion. Confusion about which Tweets are opinion and which are legitimate news.

And sometimes, because of current practices, audiences cannot tell the difference.

Why?

Because the simple addition of an exclamation point at the end of 140 characters or the urging “Go see” without a source compromises the information as news.

So, the press rights commission will discuss this statement as part of a set of guidelines for online ethics and social media:  We believe journalists and news organizations should understand the necessity of defining, and clearly labeling, news and opinion. In an open environment like the Web, consistency in presentation can help the reader see clearly where the lines are drawn between news and opinion. Whenever journalists or organizations blur or blend those roles, they need to recognize the peril and weigh the consequences.

What do you think? Add your voice to the discussion.

By Russell Hickey

When the Washington Post recently announced new rules for the use of social media by editors and staff, it was met with some criticism.  Last week, Howard Kurtz chronicled the reactions – both negative and positive.

The full-text announcement sent to the Post staff was reprinted by paidContent.

The policy behind the guidelines is understandable – journalists should remember that they are always journalists and should do nothing that would undermine their credibility or question their impartiality.  Unfortunately, social networking sites, like Twitter, are prone off-the-cuff, spur-of-the moment, out-of-context remarks.  Even following or friending certain people or organizations could suggest a bias that can undermine a reporter.

For the high school journalism student, the consequences of social networking sites may not be top of mind.  This could have dire consequences if an administrator is looking for a reason to reign in control of a high school publication.

To be certain, non-school sponsored social networking sites are outside the reach of school administrators.  Careless use of social networking sites by newspaper editors and staff, however, could provide ammunition for administrators seeking reason for prior review.  Thus, it is critical for student press advisors to get ahead of the curve and help encourage students to use some foresight.

The Student Press Law Center’s “Guide to Hazelwood” offers a “Fighting censorship checklist.”  The first item on the checklist is to practice sound journalism – which includes avoiding any appearance of bias.

It behooves students and advisers to think through these issues and potentially adverse impact that careless use of social media could have on their student publication.  A well-thought out policy for the use of social networking sites by newspaper editors and staff can be a critical demonstration of credibility.

Russell has a Bachelor’s of Journalism from the University of Missouri and a Juris Doctor from the University of Kansas, where he completed the Media, Law and Policy Certificate Program.  He currently is a Senior Claims Specialist for AXIS Pro, a Errors & Omissions Insurance provider for media companies.