Let’s say you hear a rumor that the cops came to your English teacher’s house Saturday night when her friends were dancing to Bruce Springsteen’s “Rosalita” and shouting “Huh! Huh! Huh!” along with Bruce and Clarence and Bruce’s totally hip wife Patty. These faculty members were rocking out. It was embarrassing, according to the kids in the dorm next door. So you go to the police station and sure enough there’s an arrest record. Smart reporter that you are, you bring the document straight home to the newsroom. But how exactly should it be published? It might be a hoot to tell the world your English teacher had disturbed the peace by dancing badly to Springsteen, especially if the story was short with a cute first paragraph (heh, heh), but what if the story ran under the (accurate) headline: “English Teacher Arrested”? That would be truthful. Would it be fair?
And here we slide into those philosophical issues we skated through in early sections of this book. Your editors from hell are accustomed to such questions. It is their job to assign newsworthy stories, place them under headlines that do them justice, position them in places that reflect their importance, and kill them—or “spike them” in newspaper lingo—when they don’t merit publishing.
Most young reporters are surprised to learn how often editors spike stories; most readers have absolutely no idea. But keeping unworthy stories out of the paper is exactly as important as getting worthy stories in.
Obviously, the most important stories to keep OUT of the paper are those that break the laws of libel. You can learn some basic information about those laws in the next section of this book.
The stories that get IN must be accurate, as you know (ad nauseum by now), and, what’s more, they should be ethical. That is, in every way, they should be fair.
How do you make a story “fair”? That’s a great question, and it’s not easy to answer. Ethical stories are complete, unbiased, and balanced. But these are complex requirements. If a scientist argues that global warming exists, for example, is it “balanced” to give equal space in the article to an industry executive, also a scientist, arguing the threat is overstated? Most journalists and scholars of ethical journalism would say no. If a formal conference is held among Holocaust deniers (as it was, in 2007, in Iran), is it “fair” to cover the conference? To report the speakers’ remarks? Does a paper covering such speeches inadvertently endorse them? Or help disseminate them? Should the paper find historians to give a “balanced” view? How do you “balance” fabrications with historical fact? What, in this circumstance, is actually “fair”?
These questions are so vexing even veteran journalists would be reading these questions through their fingers. Attempting to make the above stories “fair” can do more harm than good, if this means turning to sources who are themselves unethical, compromised, or biased. The term “balanced” isn’t ideal either, since so often a story has only one intelligible side, or has far more than two. And while journalists must seek truth and report it, they must also minimize the harm that may come from their stories. This is especially important when covering what journalism professor Jay Rosen calls “wicked problems“—stories about problems so complex they can barely be described, much less solved. Furthermore, we are all human and therefore subject to our own skewed perceptions even when we’re journalists. And it’s not only wicked problems that are hard to cover. Ordinary, everyday stories pose all sorts of ethical dilemmas, too. How do you cover a story about a friend? When should you write up a story that is underway, when the publicity will alter its course? If a story might do harm as well as good, what is the obligation to run it? Difficult questions. So how do you answer them?
Andrew Gully from the Boston Herald, has a little mantra he always told his reporters: “Be true to the story.” That is, you shouldn’t pledge that you’ll be true to yourself when you report and write a story, nor that you’ll be true to your sources, nor to your readers. Instead, the story itself has a life of its own. If you think about staying true to the story, you’ll be off to a good start.
After that, study the journalists’ code of ethics, the five principles for reporting and writing, and the basics of libel law. You will find them in this chapter of the book.
Ethics
Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics
Professional journalists follow the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. These are the rules under which ethical journalists operate as they go about their work, and the code is the foundation on which ethical journalism rests. The rules belong to four categories: Seek Truth and Report It; Minimize Harm; Act Independently; and Be Accountable.
You should read the code through several times. Some of the rules won’t seem relevant to you at first, because you won’t have encountered that particular ethical dilemma or challenging situation. But the more you report, write, and edit stories, the more you’ll run into situations in which you will need to know the code. The code’s language—appropriate for journalists—is concise and clear. You shouldn’t skim the list of rules; instead, think about each one, and why it matters, and how you would fulfill it. You will learn so much about ethical journalism—quickly!
Ethics Case Studies
Take a walk now in the shoes of experienced journalists confronting those difficult ethical dilemmas. Here’s a link to some of the Society of Professional Journalists’ recent ethics case studies, in which elements of the ethics code are examined. You should try your hand at figuring out what you would do under these circumstances. (Be sure to read about each case’s background and outcome.) I find the case “When Sources Won’t Talk” particularly interesting, as it’s about a college newspaper. (Note the difference between the fraternity’s “apology” and the one offered by the sorority. And note the care with which the college newspaper’s editors tracked down what actually happened and made their decisions, given that the college paper itself was involved, tangentially, in the story.)
The Indiana University School of Journalism also has a superb collection of ethics cases, including one titled, “White Lies: Bending the Truth to Expose Injustice.” (The cases are based on the work of the late Barry Bingham, Jr., who was the editor and publisher of The Courier-Journal and The Louisville Times.)
The Five Principles for Reporting and Writing
In 2006, veteran journalists Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel queried 1,200 editors and reporters as part of a three-year project on the state of journalism in America. They were looking to see which principles were identified most often as guiding reporters and editors in their day-to-day work. let these principles guide you:
1. Never add anything that wasn’t there.
If a person wears a neon necktie one day and clown shoes the next, you cannot describe him as if he’s wearing both those things at once. You’ll want to, to make the story better, but you can’t mess with reality this way, on clown shoes or anything else. Do not add.
2. Never deceive the audience.
Don’t change quotes without ellipses or brackets, even to fix grammar. Don’t make it appear that you heard something when it was said if you only found out about it later; don’t make it appear as if someone said something to you in an interview if they said it in a speech. Don’t photoshop pictures; don’t give the readers any approximation of the truth. Do not confuse or obfuscate; do not deceive.
3. Be as transparent as possible about your own methods and motives.
The reader should understand where, when, and how you got the information for your story, and should understand your motives for ordering the information as you did. Do not work with secrets.
4. Rely on your own original reporting.
Check out what others tell you, including what is reported in other media. In the end, it’s your story.
Beware of relying too much on a press release or other sources of secondhand reporting.
5. Exercise humility.
Be skeptical about your own ability to understand a story fully. Of course you must talk to the stakeholders in any story so you hear their point of view. Beyond that, though, you should question yourself: Are you sure you know what a fundamentalist means when he talks about being saved? Are you sure you understand why a school committee member would be opposed to health education? Maybe you don’t know all the background. Maybe you don’t know all the details. Educate yourself.
Wearing the Press Pass
Let’s face it—wearing a press pass is a blast. You don’t actually need one to work as a journalist, but you might receive one from your school, or you can apply for one if you’re a freelance journalist or photographer. When you throw that thing around your neck, frankly you feel special—and I think you should! The press pass proclaims to the world that you’re not just a spectator at this scene but a person on a mission; you’re at work. Your senses are heightened, your thoughts are focused, your mind is alert, and you know what you’re doing.
A 1957 press pass for a journalist from the Las Vegas News Bureau to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nevada Test Site.
Except that if you’re at all like me, you don’t know what you’re doing the first few times—or even the first dozen times—you go out on a story. You’re a bit shy or a bit confused, and you don’t know where you’re supposed or allowed to be. Not to worry; you’ll learn the ropes. But what you must know from the start are the rules of conduct for wearing that press pass. These rules apply whether you’re wearing a physical press pass or not—if you’re working on a story, these rules apply. They were written by Melissa Wantz of Foothill Technology High School, one of the country’s most fabulous journalism teachers and a former journalist herself, whose students adore her because she is smart and funny and quick, and because she’s tough and demanding. You can see her personality right here on the page in her rules for press pass use for her student journalists at The Foothill Dragon Press.
If you are using a press credential, your behavior is impeccable.
You show up when you’re supposed to and only work in the area(s) assigned to you.
Your friends (or family) can’t come along and you can’t hang out with them if they “happen” to be there. You’re working.
You are always mindful of your personal space, the space of others, your tone of voice, and your demeanor. (Texting and cell phone use is generally frowned upon.)
You may not wear campaign buttons, team insignias, or anything else that could show that you may have a bias.
There’s no free lunch.
You cannot go into restaurants and tell them they’re being reviewed. (Ergo, you cannot ever ask for or expect free food.) Take friends (preferably staffers) and order several items, quietly talk about them, and take notes. Only ask the server the type of questions a normal patron would ask. Go back again for a second review if you didn’t like the food or service—it may have been an off-day and no business deserves to have its reputation tarnished for one off-night.
You may not collect “freebies” from an event. (Consider your press pass your “souvenir.”)
If you cover it, then you will write/publish a photo essay/produce a video about it.
Receiving press passes are a privilege, not a right. They are given for publicity purposes (even if you have to fairly report the play is awful). You need to provide the publicity you promised by attending the event as a member of the press.
If you have a breach in ethics or otherwise break the staff’s trust, then you will no longer be able to use [the school’s] publication’s name to obtain press passes. Our reputation is on the line, too.
Exercises
An activity for the classroom from Melissa Wantz:
Print out a copy of the NSPA’s Model Code of Ethics for each student.
Break the class into seven groups, one for each ethic.
Have each group read their section together, discuss the most important ideas, and come up with a skit to demonstrate clearly what not to do and/or what to do.
Have each group perform their short skit for the class the next day, and the class can talk and brainstorm based on what was presented in the skits. Students or the teacher may challenge the performers, asking, “How else could the reporter have handled this situation?” or “Why wouldn’t we do this?” if appropriate.
When the skits are over, have students return to their groups and condense their section into no more than 15 words. Then have them write their 15-word sentences on the board. Those seven 15-word sentences become the class’s own condensed code of ethics.
For students studying on their own, explore more of the ethics case studies compiled by the Society of Professional Journalists and try your hand at wrestling with some of the difficult scenarios presented.
Explore more of the Indiana University School of Journalism’s collection of ethics case studies. Select some cases that interest you and consider how they were handled. Would you have made the same decisions?
The Law
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
– The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
The First Amendment to the Constitution protects American citizens’ right to free speech and to a free press, but the Amendment does not protect the people’s right to say—or print—whatever they want. On the contrary, certain types of speech are illegal. You can’t scream, “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater that’s not actually on fire, for example, because your lie risks harming people. Similarly, you can’t publish information about another person that is untrue and damaging to her; this is called libel, and it’s against the law. Neither can you print material that invades someone’s privacy or material that is obscene; these types of expression are illegal, and if you print them, you risk being sued.
Now you are probably thinking, “Oh, for goodness sake, no one is going to sue me! I’m 18 years old, I hardly know what I’m doing as a journalist, I’ve got editors in charge of my stories, and this is altogether not my responsibility. Plus, some other entity publishes the stories—a school, or a non-profit corporation—so why would anyone bother suing me? I have ten bucks in my wallet, and I’m about to spend five of them on a latte.”
All of that is true, but make no mistake: If your byline is on a story containing illegal expression, you may be included in any libel lawsuit pertaining to that story. If you’re named in the suit, you’ll have to hire a lawyer, and those guys cost money—plenty of it—even if the case never goes to court.
On the other hand, it is true that you could write libelous material and never be sued. People harmed by libel often don’t want to put themselves through the draining experience and expense of a lawsuit that only brings on more publicity, and they may be sympathetic to your position as a novice journalist and a student.
And even if you are sued for libel, you might not be found guilty, because it is not simple for a plaintiff to meet all the standards for a successful case.
Nonetheless, if you break the laws of libel, you will indeed risk provoking an expensive lawsuit, not to mention harming your newspaper’s reputation and your own. Worst of all, you’ll have harmed someone in a most serious way, or, in the case of obscenity, harmed your community.
Thus, it’s important that you have at least a basic understanding of the law of libel, invasion of privacy, and obscenity. The brief descriptions below will give you a very general outline of the law. Far more thorough lessons are available from the Student Press Law Center (SPLC), a non-profit organization that educates student journalists about their legal rights. Please make sure to read the SPLC resources linked below in each section.
Libel
Libel is a false printed statement of fact that attacks a person’s reputation or good name and tends to harm her reputation in the community. (Libel is based on the printed word; slander is based on the spoken word.) A negative, inaccurate story about someone would be considered libelous:
If the story were published (rather than, for example, contained in a letter).
If the person libeled could be identified in the story (either by name, or, if the person is not named, if a small group of readers could nonetheless figure out who he is).
If the person libeled then suffered damage to his reputation or diminished standing in the community.
If the reporter who wrote the story didn’t verify the story’s accuracy. A private person suing for libel can win his case simply by showing that a reporter didn’t adequately verify information; a public person on the other hand (such as a celebrity, or someone who has a public role in the community) must also show that the reporter had reason to suspect the information might be false but published it anyway.
Now, please read this legal brief from the SPLC on libel law.
Note: If the reporter wrote the false and damaging statements only as a joke, or preceded them with “In my opinion…” the false and damaging remarks are STILL LIBEL, and the reporter can be sued. That’s not so funny, but it’s true.
Also note: If a source provides untrue and damaging information to you and you publish it, you are the one who can be sued. That’s because your source merely spoke to you, one individual, while you published the libelous remark and therefore made it available for many people to read, which is what makes it damaging. So be sure you completely trust your source, or else be sure to double check the facts contained in your source’s quotes, even quotes that are “on the record.” If the quote is not true, it’s your neck, not your source’s, on the line.
Finally, remember this—the absolute defense against libel is simple: Publish only the truth.
How Libel Holds Up in Court: From Middle Tennessee State University’s First Amendment Encyclopedia
Actual Malice
By Stephen Wermiel
Actual malice is the legal standard established by the Supreme Court for libel cases to determine when public officials or public figures may recover damages in lawsuits against the news media.
The standard came from the case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) involving this advertisement alleging abuses by the Montgomery police. (The New York Times advertisement that prompted a libel lawsuit by a city commissioner in Montgomery County who oversaw police, via National Archives, public domain)
Public officials cannot win libel cases without proof of actual malice
Beginning with the unanimous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court has held that public officials cannot recover damages for libel without proving that a statement was made with actual malice — defined as “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Public figures, officials bear burden of proving actual malice
In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court elaborated on the actual malice test in the libel context. In St. Amant v. Thompson (1968), the Court recognized the standard as a subjective one, requiring proof that the defendant actually had doubts about the truth or falsity of a story. It extended the application of the actual malice test to public figures, not just public officials, in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967).
Under the actual malice standard, if the individual who sues is a public official or public figure, that individual bears the burden of proving that the media defendant acted with actual malice. The amount of proof must be “clear and convincing evidence,” and the standard applies to compensatory as well as to punitive damages.
Actual malice not required for private figures
Concerning private figures, however, the Court ruled in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) that actual malice is not required for recovery of compensatory damages, but is the standard for punitive damages.
Court has used actual malice test to give news First Amendment protection
The Supreme Court has expanded the reach of the First Amendment to afford the news media protection against other types of lawsuits designed to protect individual privacy, including those alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, as in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988); disclosure of private facts, as per Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989); and depicting someone in a false light, as in Time Inc. v. Hill (1967). In all of these cases, the Court applied the same actual malice test to further recognize the principle of free and open comment in a democratic society.
The actual malice standard has at times drawn criticism from people in the public eye who think the test makes it too hard for them to restore their reputations and from the news media, which has complained that the standard does not afford enough protection for freedom of speech.
In July 2021, justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote separate dissenting opinions to a denial of certiorari in the defamation case Berisha v. Lawson, saying that the actual malice standard needed review. Gorsuch argued that the media landscape had changed dramatically since the New York Times decision.
This article was originally published in 2009 and has been updated by encyclopedia staff as recently as July 2021. Stephen Wermiel is a professor of practice at American University Washington College of Law, where he teaches constitutional law, First Amendment and a seminar on the workings of the Supreme Court. He writes a periodic column on SCOTUSblog aimed at explaining the Supreme Court to law students. He is co-author of Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010) and The Progeny: Justice William J. Brennan’s Fight to Preserve the Legacy of New York Times v. Sullivan (ABA Publishing, 2014).
Invasion of Privacy
It is against the law to invade someone’s privacy, and you can break that law in one of four ways:
Intrusion
If you enter someone’s private place (a home, office, restroom, locker room, or other private area) without that person’s consent, or photograph someone in a private place without that person’s consent.
If you quote or tape-record someone without that person’s consent.
If you reprint material without the author’s permission.
If you quote inaccuracies from a third party (that is, if you quote person A telling you what person B said, thought, felt, or did without person B verifying that it’s true.)
Misappropriation
If you use someone’s name or photograph for commercial purposes without that person’s consent.
False Light
If you offer true information in a way that implies something false.
Private or Embarrassing Information
If you publish private information. Medical records, sexual history, and school reports by their nature are private and privileged, and you cannot publish them. There are some exceptions, however. You may publish such information if it is considered “newsworthy”—for example, if you publish it in a story about a crime. You may publish private information if the person you’re writing about gives you permission, or consent. And some public officials and “public figures” are not protected by the privacy law.
Now, please read this legal brief from the SPLC on invasion of privacy law.
Obscenity
Obscenity is defined as “something that by community standards arouses sexual desire, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Profanity is not the same thing as obscenity, so while you do not want profanity in your stories—it’s almost always either tacky or offensive—you aren’t breaking the law if you publish it. Obscenity, though, is indeed illegal.
I honestly think it’s not that easy to write something obscene. I mean, look at the definition! You’d have to really work hard at it, keep your focus, and plow through the obscene descriptions. Chances are you’d become mortified with embarrassment and delete yourself right out of harm’s way. If, however, you are writing a humor column late at night, especially if you’re giddy with exhaustion, step away from the computer.
Journalists are subject to the same laws as any other citizens, and the newsworthiness of a story is no defense against a criminal charge. For example, journalists have been prosecuted for such offenses as criminal trespass; disorderly conduct for refusing to follow the instructions of a police officer; theft of trade secrets; theft by hacking into computer, voicemail and email systems; and possession of child pornography.
Even when reporters don’t violate a criminal statute, they may still cause a personal injury that can lead to a civil lawsuit for money damages. Examples include defamation; invasion of privacy through physical or electronic intrusion into a person’s physical space; invasion of privacy through the publication of embarrassing private facts; intentional infliction of emotional distress; misrepresentation or fraud; breach of contract; and tortious interference with contract (interfering with a source’s confidentiality agreement with their employer). It should be noted that while a great deal of consideration should be given to whether it is appropriate to disclose a source’s medical condition, journalists are not “covered entities” under HIPAA — the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act — and cannot be criminally prosecuted for such breaches.
SUNSHINE LAWS AND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA)
First implemented in the 1970s, Sunshine Laws seek to shine light on the inner workings of state and federal government officials and departments. As a result most meetings of regulatory bodies must be public and their decisions and records disclosed. These laws are not limited to the United States. Some 70 nations have implemented sunshine laws of varying strengths.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), enacted in 1966, requires that government agencies disclose records not specifically and reasonably exempt to any individuals—including journalists—upon written request, with the right of access enforceable in court. FOIA applies to more than 70 executive branch agencies in the federal government (Environmental Protection Agency, for example) and 15 departments (including the Department of Justice). The president, Congress and the courts are not covered by the law, nor are state governments (although each state has passed its own freedom-of-information legislation, as have a number of cities and municipalities). FOIA does not apply to state or local government agencies records, nor can a reporter FOIA a company or individual.
For the patient reporter—it can take months for a government agency to fulfill a FOIA request—they can provide valuable information. For example, in 2005 the Associated Press learned through a FOIA request that National Institutes of Health scientists received “millions of dollars in royalties for experimental treatments without having to tell patients testing the treatments that the researchers’ had a financial connection.” The New York Daily News used a FOIA to find out that the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan incurred maintenance and cleaning costs that were twice what state court buildings paid, including a bill for $84,812 to polish the brass located in the building entrances. Blogger Jeff Jarvis filed a FOIA to discover that the Federal Communications Commission claim it received 159 complaints from people about a sexually suggestive TV show—which led to a record $1.2 million against Fox in 2004—was brought about by three people who actually wrote the letters to the FCC. (The rest were photocopies.)
The Society of Professional Journalists provides a handy “toolkit” covering FOIAs, including how to apply state and federal governmental, and law enforcement records. And The First Amendment Center also offers useful information on FOIAs, as does MuckRock.
GOVERNMENT SUBPOENAS
Reporters have only limited protection if they are served with a subpoena to testify or to produce notes and other documents. Protection varies under the circumstances.
Grand jury proceedings: Reporters called to testify before a federal grand jury have no First Amendment protection if they refuse to testify. Refusal to testify can result in a criminal contempt of court citation and a prison term of days to months or longer.
Criminal and civil trials: Most courts recognize qualified First Amendment protection when reporters are called to testify at trials. Courts consider whether the reporter has information that goes to the heart of the case and whether the information can be obtained from sources other than the reporter. The result, generally speaking, is that reporters must often testify at criminal trials, where the public interest in testifying is very high, but often successfully challenge a subpoena to testify at a civil trial.
Many states have what are known as “shield laws” that provide some protection to journalists called to testify. But these laws are typically porous and often don’t provide adequate protection in an individual case. There is no federal shield law that would protect reporters from being called to testify in federal court proceedings (as opposed to state court proceedings). The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has compiled a detailed list of state shield laws.
Copyright
Individuals in America have a right to their intellectual property—not only work they’ve published but also work they’ve created that has not been published. Thus, you may not reprint someone else’s intellectual work—their poem, story, picture, photo, graphic, lyric, music, play, cartoon, board game, or any other sort of created work—without their permission. If you do so, you may be sued and fined. Please also refer to the SPLC’s Student Media Guide to Copyright Law.
Public Domain
A great deal of material published on the Internet is, indeed, available to be reprinted in your newspaper that are not eligible for copyright protection; these materials are in the public domain. Among them:
Titles
Phrases
Procedures, processes, or systems
Any work of the United States government
Any work with an expired copyright (this includes most work published in the United States before 1923, but some copyrights have been extended—check!)
Fair Use of Copyrighted Works
Even if a work is protected by copyright, you can use a limited portion without infringing on the copyright owner’s rights if it qualifies as fair use. The doctrine of fair use allows you to include, for example, excerpts from a song in a music review, or quotations from a news article in an editorial, or lines from a poem, assuming, of course, you credit the writer. There are other qualifications for fair use as well: You cannot copy part of someone else’s work for profit, and you cannot “lessen the value of the original work.” To be on the safe side, just don’t publish more than a line or two of someone else’s work, and name the author in a credit. Please read this nicely compact summary of the conditions of fair use from YouTube.
If you plan to use more than a line or two of someone’s work, find out who owns the copyright and contact them. In the old days, finding out who owned a copyright entailed a lot of schlepping to the library. Now, naturally, the information is at your fingertips on the Internet, which means if you do not go to the trouble of hunting up the copyright information, requesting permission to reprint material, and paying the fee to use that material if such a fee is imposed, you’re really falling down on the job—crashing to the floor, really.
Creative Commons Licenses
The Creative Commons copyright license system was created in 2002 as a standardized way to grant authors, artists, etc. specific copyright permissions regarding the distribution and use of their work. There are six different types of licenses. Each license represents a different combination of conditions or rights for people (“licensees”) who wish to use (distribute, copy, remix, build upon, what have you) the original work. You can think of the Creative Commons licenses as offering “gradations” of copyright permissions on the spectrum between no copyright (public domain) and full copyright (“all rights reserved”).
The licenses and their terms are stated on the Creative Commons website. You can also find a more easily readable, condensed explanation on Wikipedia. Here’s the gist of it:
There are four types of conditions, and each is represented by its own symbol and two-letter abbreviation.
Attribution (BY): Requires licensees to give credit to the original author or licensor in the manner specified by them.
Share-alike (SA): Requires licensees to distribute derivative works under the same license governing the original work.
Noncommercial (NC): Requires licensees to use the original work only for noncommercial purposes.
No Derivative Works (ND): Requires licensees to only use verbatim copies of the work and forbids them from creating or using derivative works.
The six Creative Commons licenses are different combinations of those four conditions. Each is referred to as “CC” (“Creative Commons”) plus the relevant two-letter abbreviations.
The First Amendment to the Constitution prevents the United States government from abridging a citizen’s free speech. And principals and teachers at public schools—who are agents of the government—may not abridge their students’ right to free speech, a right that was upheld in the 1969 landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In this case, students protesting the Vietnam War wore black armbands to school, and the Court ruled that school administrators could not prohibit the students from this expression of free speech. The court declared that students’ First Amendment rights “do not stop at the schoolhouse door” unless that expression “materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”
In 1988, another Supreme Court decision altered that definition of students’ First Amendment rights. In this case, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, a high school principal in Missouri removed two pages from the student newspaper before it was published because he objected to two stories, one about pregnancies at the school, the other about the effect of divorce on children. The student editors sued their school, charging that the principle had violated their First Amendment rights, and this time the Court ruled in favor of the school, stating that school officials did have the right to review the content of school-sponsored publications and to remove material they found “unsuitable.” The ruling did not say that school officials must review the material or censor it, only that, under certain circumstances, they may do so.
While the Hazelwood decision makes it far more difficult for scholastic journalists to have complete freedom of their presses, several states have overruled Hazelwood by passing laws guaranteeing student press rights, including the state of Massachusetts. The others are Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, and Oregon. For more about the enduring effects of the Hazelwood ruling, read this Education Weekfeature, published on the 25th anniversary of the landmark decision. This article details a recent challenge to Iowa’s Student Free Expression Law, which was passed in 1989 in response to the Hazelwood decision.
ARE THE TIMES CHANGING?
Student journalists are challenging the industry’s traditional ethics – from The Poynter Institute
A socially conscious generation is pushing back against journalism’s longtime standards of objectivity, neutrality and bias
The Lead is a weekly newsletter that provides resources and connections for student journalists in both college and high school. Sign up here to have it delivered to your inbox every Wednesday morning during the school year.
I went back to school this fall and started a part-time master’s degree in journalism education at Kent State University. My first class focuses on teaching journalism ethics, so I’ve spent the past few months examining journalism’s ethical standards and thinking about how they apply to student journalism.
My class is mostly made up of professional journalists and classroom teachers/student media advisers. The advisers’ stories during our discussions have reminded me that student journalists face ethical issues that professionals rarely have to consider.
By the virtue of being a student, they’re all part of the communities they’re covering. Especially in high schools and in smaller colleges, it’s hard to truly separate yourself from the people you’re writing about. The basketball coach you’re interviewing might also be your math teacher, and the student body president you’re writing a profile on might be your friend’s older sister.
While navigating these dilemmas, student journalists in a socially conscious generation are also pushing back against some of the industry’s longtime standards of objectivity, neutrality and perceptions of bias. As students mobilized nationally for March for Our Lives protests against gun violence, the co-editor-in-chief of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School newspaper told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” that “journalism is a form of activism.”
Students are asking: Can journalists write about issues they have a personal stake in? How do we separate journalism and advocacy — or should we? How does social media play into all of this? Do personal identities make journalists biased, or do they make their work better?
These are discussions that are happening in the professional world, too, particularly around race, police violence and protests. What makes student newsrooms different is one of their greatest strengths: their adaptability. When your staff fully turns over every four years, there’s less pressure to do things the way they’ve always been done. There’s more room for radical change, new policies and experimentation.
This is the start of The Lead’s series on the changing ethics of student journalism. In the next month, we’ll hear from student journalists about how their newsrooms are approaching objectivity and other traditional ethical ideals. We’ll explore how to codify ethical guidelines for your staff. We’ll examine the sometimes-blurry line between journalism and activism.
Are ethics still essential to student journalism? Absolutely. But student journalists have realized something the rest of the industry should bear in mind: The way the industry has traditionally viewed objectivity and neutrality benefits a select group of journalists and harms many others. It’s time to question our newsrooms’ practices like we would any other organization and find a better, more inclusive way forward.
One story worth reading
Is journalism a form of activism? Many journalists cringe at the term and think it compromises their ability to report fairly, but there’s an argument to be made for the idea, Danielle Tcholakian writes for Longreads. Journalists advocate for transparency, accountability and truth, and their most powerful stories often lead to tangible change.
“We observe, but we also prod and inquire,” Matt Pearce of the Los Angeles Times told Tcholakian. “We sue when government officials don’t give us records; newspapers’ past Supreme Court cases have won important victories for Americans’ First Amendment rights. We publish investigations when we discover wrongdoing, and we are proud of the improvements those investigations bring to the lives of millions of people. We will refuse judges’ orders and go to jail to protect important sources. We unionize to protect ourselves when we fear for our work. All that sounds like activism to me, even if journalists think the word carries a stigma.”
