Advisers and activism

I know some professional journalists who do not register with a political party, thus avoiding an obvious label. I know some professional journalists who do not vote, which seems extreme. I know some professional journalists who wouldn't dream of EVER marching or joining in any particular cause for fear that their objectivity will be compromised.

I also know professionals who join a political party, vote, and participate in community causes. Reasonable people can disagree.

Since I do not believe there can be any sort of rigid "objectivity," I personally think those outward displays are simply for display. But at least they grow from a sense of belonging to the journalism "guild," and supporting some professional standards.

Advisers wear a variety of "hats" of course, but "professional journalist" is not one of them (well, I suppose some advisers are moonlighting as journalists...).

Advisers are, in some sort of descending order:

1. Human beings. 
2. Members of a family. 
3. Citizens, and members of a larger community. 
4. Educators. 
5. Advisers. 

We run into problems when advisers begin thinking they are members of the journalism profession (and I know that position will bother some people).

Teachers/advisers can march, protest, speak out. What good is the First Amendment if people cannot do these things? What happens to an education devoid of passion, or emotions, or sympathy?

I also think it is fine that students, parents, etc., are aware that an adviser/teacher/administrator has marched, voted, read widely, traveled, and generally experienced life (it seems a bit creepy for teachers to pretend teachers have no preferences, no particular morals, no point of view -- though I would also be in favor of not making a show of political views). I refer you to Matthew, and Jesus reminding the Pharisees of the difference between their public displays and true belief.

I am generally in favor of school policies that prohibit teachers from displaying materials from ONE political party in their classroom or that prohibit political harangues. The power differentials are too great between teacher and student for those things to be acceptable.

The murky area lies in how much the adviser influences the final coverage in the student media. As I say: "If an adviser really wants to write or photograph or design, go do that. But you can't take advantage of your power to practice journalism in the STUDENT press."

I resist the "journalism ghetto," and reject the idea that advisers should surrender certain rights, and that media education must be divorced from the rest of the curriculum. It does a disservice to our students for us to pretend to have no views or insights into politics or the law or the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. It is also a disservice to take advantage of our special relationship with young people to "do their thinking for them."

Advisers (teachers) can find a balance between being full members of society and demagoguery. They do that every day, or they leave the profession.

I know advisers who do not allow editors to also be student government leaders. It sounds so noble until I think of the opportunities lost, and of how often editors really ARE leaders in the school. Are we not capable of helping students see varying roles, varying situations? Young people CAN get things mixed up, but rules banning journalism and government leadership IN SCHOOL mistakenly mix the professional world with the academic/social world.

Teaching ethics? Start here.

The American Society of Newspaper Editors have an ethics project that brings together a wide range of samples from across the country. Click on http://asne.org/key_initiatives/ethics/ethics_codes.aspx and suddenly your students have a variety of resources to research.

Provoking thought... our daily responsibility

My buddy Mark Newton passed on this link today, which is related to the Tucson shootings but focuses on one of the very bedrock principles of free expression. The writer's argument defending free speech, while challenging those who exercise free speech to stand by what they express, is an essential part of journalism education. We need to push our students to carefully consider their views before they publish, and then to stand strongly behind their considered views.

In class, we might discuss the difference between a rapidly constructed tweet and a reasoned blog entry. One is the equivalent of an off-the-cuff comment in the lunchroom, while the other is one of the treasured outcomes of true education. Which of those forms of expression are we more likely to stand behind when confronted with opposition? We need to share these sorts of opinion pieces with our students, not to pressure them to believe some point of view in particular, but to get them to value good writing and how it can be achieved. It is important, of course, to find balance in these examples, so you might add in this link to the discussion, which comments on the Tucson shootings and Sarah Palin but from a different direction.

The key question is always: "How did the writer use language to make her point?"

Is there a place for humor and satire in the high school press?

This post was prompted by a discussion on the JEA listserv. An adviser asked about an editor's plans to publish an "April Fool" edition. Most of the respondents gave this idea a strong and quick thumbs down. But it seems to me that there is more to talk about here.

The conventional reasons given for avoiding publishing humor and satire grow out of fear (of readers not "getting" the references/jokes, of juvenile/vulgar humor, of losing standing in the community, etc.). There's something in me that resists that fearfulness.


The fact that high school students rarely can pull off humor or satire may actually be a factor in encouraging them to explore these forms of writing. After all, most of our students didn't find basic news writing to be all that easy until they had practiced extensively. We certainly should encourage our students to analyze how humor and satire work -- after all, our students are avid consumers of satiric programs like "The Daily Show," and one of our jobs is to help students become more savvy consumers of media.

I regularly see individual high school columnists pull off humor and satire in papers across the country. I also see many terrific editorial cartoons in high school media that lampoon the powerful. The key is that those successful forays into potentially risky territory are focused, well-developed, and skillful. They also tend to reside in opinion sections, where readers (and administrators) often grant greater leeway.

And that leads me to point out that "April Fool" editions tend to get overextended, trying to force humor into situations where it just doesn't work. Humor and satire can add to a publication's voice, but such techniques need to be appropriate and organic, not forced into a one-time enterprise.

So... I agree with most of my colleagues that April Fool editions are not worth the effort. But an editorial cartoonist or regular columnist who has the skill, sophistication and courage to point out the silliness or boneheadedness that we all know occasionally occurs in our communities... well, that is something we should be able to support.

Support the First Amendment!

Go to 1forall to find interesting videos and teaching materials relating to all aspects of the First Amendment. This is a site sponsored by several national organizations that we should have our students bookmark.