| site links |
|
:: home :: archive :: donate :: rss feed :: about site :: bend forums :: bend blogs :: sh.orty :: welcome to bend |
| advertisements |
|
|
| about |
|
UtterlyBoring.com is produced by Jake Ortman (e-mail, resume), a 30-year-old dad, percussionist, freelance Web designer, consultant and jack-of-all-trades computer geek, living in Bend, Oregon. He created this so that his expensive journalism and technology degree isn't getting totally wasted. In addition to editing this site in his free time, he is the IT Director and Ad Designer at both Sunray and Discover Sunriver. He has LinkedIn, MySpace, Facebook profiles if you're trying to stalk him.
Opinions and comments on this site are the opinions of the author, not the author's employer, family, friends or pets. This site is powered by Movable Type and is hosted by orty.com. Internet connection provided by Bend BroadBand. Since December 1st, 2002, there have been 5269 entries. Visitors to this blog have posted 16539 comments. If you're reading this, you have too much time on your hands. |
| support us |
|
|
Freedom Of The Press Gets A Serious BlowWhen I was in college, and for many years after as part of my job, I closely followed college media trends. I still read up on it whenever possible, am still a subscriber to many college media mailing lists, and was even asked to judge in a college online media competition recently (which I am probably going to have to turn down due to the time involved). That being said, I was deeply saddened to hear that the Supreme Court decided it would not hear Hosty v. Carter (case No. 05-377) and let stand a June 2005 decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The news flash from the Student Press Law Center is here with their background on the case here. An AP-Wire story is here, but the long and short of it is that the case gives administrators at public colleges and universities the authority to censor student produced newspapers and publications, using the Hazelwood decision (which affected high schools, not grown adults) as a basis. It's a sad, sad day, really, and I really hope that colleges make formal declarations (like some schools in the 7th circuit have) that protect their students from administrators who have issues with content. Thankfully, many college newspapers (like the newspaper at Oregon) are fully independent organizations and corporations which cannot be touched by administrators (and I know that in the past that UO administrators have made it clear they will never require prior review or censor the publications there). Just the same, the administrations at these campuses should still make it clear -- in official writing -- that the publications on campus are a designated public forum and that student editors, for better or for worse, have the authority to make all content decisions without fear of being censored or requiring prior review. I know for more people who read this site, this is not a big deal. But as someone who probably spent more time in the newsroom in college than I did in the classroom, this is a very big deal. Posted by Jake on 02/21/06 @ 09:46 AM
Posted in Journalism, Sad | 12 Comments | Permalink Submit to digg, del.icio.us, reddit, or stumbleupon 12 CommentsNonchalant Savant said on 02/21/06 @ 03:14 PM:Very, very tricky. I can see both sides of the story. The crux of the case seems to be that the student newspaper wished to publish unflattering stories about the school. So of course the school begged to differ. These stories could damage the school's reputation. If untrue, could the school sue the reporter for slander? That would bite hard into student loans... What would be the school's other option? In the real world, if a reporter wrote a story that bit the hand that fed them or was critical of a major advertiser, he or she would risk being fired. Actions/consequences in the real world. Would you be in favor of allowing administration officials to expel students who were damaging the reputation of the school? That makes me a bit queasy as well. You've followed this closer than I have, and I will assume that what the student reporter(s) wrote was true. But I'm also assuming there may have been another side to the story that was not being addressed. The best solution would seem to be, if it was a true censorship issue, for the student reporters to take the story to a local newspaper and let them run with it. It takes it out of the educational domain and into the free marketplace where slander & libel laws prevail. Facts would have to be checked, etc. Very interesting, though. Jake said on 02/21/06 @ 03:25 PM: I've been following the comments on the College Media Advisors mailing list today after this was laid down, and the interesting thing that's come out of this is while letting the decision stands sucks, this is probably not the case for college freedom that should probably go before the highest court in the land to have them outright shoot it down and write it into law. It wasn't well founded, apparently, and there were other iffy issues. I didn't follow the fine print details of things as well as I would've liked, but some of the folks more versed in this have said this is a bit of a blessing in disguise. They're going to keep fighting for freedom, but they hope that next time they go to the Supreme court, they have a better case that will have a better chance of winning (of course with the latest nominations to the supreme court, I doubt it). Scott said on 02/22/06 @ 09:01 AM: I veered away from journalism a little bit in college, but I spent all of my high school days (and nights) in the journalism room. Writing, copy editing, layout. And I remember these rules well, and some of the trouble that it caused (both students and admins). When you are 17, you think you can do whatever you want. And if it does slip by the administrators or teachers that are supposed to review it, you can get yourself in big trouble. College is a different story, you are right. But many of those papers are for educational purposes and are funded by the school, I assume. You did mention that many of them are separate entities, so I would hope these rules wouldn't apply. Nonchalant had some good points. What can the school do if a reporter writes false things about the school? Sue itself? Jake said on 02/22/06 @ 09:08 AM: Nonchalant had some good points. What can the school do if a reporter writes false things about the school? Sue itself? They could sue the paper, if they are an independent operation. The liklihood of that happening is pretty slim, but that's what they could do if the paper was indeed fully independent (which a paper really needs to be to protect themselves). Sam said on 02/28/06 @ 04:09 PM: Just because a newspaper is funded "independently" doesn't mean the administration cannot go after students in others ways (as seen in the recent Daily Illini case). Besides the funded of GSU's newspaper came from student activities fees - not from the university itself. Jake said on 02/28/06 @ 04:24 PM: The Daily Illini case, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't done by anybody actually employed by the school. The shutting down of the editors was done by advisors and administrators on the paper's payroll, not on the school's (but I honesty can't remember, as I'm a bit behind on that). Sam said on 02/28/06 @ 04:34 PM: The recent Daily Illini case, involving the cartoons, resulted in two editors being suspended. The Daily Illini is an "independently funded" newspaper & yet were still subjected to administrative punishments via their student record. Sam said on 02/28/06 @ 04:36 PM: As a former student editor, I am confused as to why any student would pay mandatory student activity fees and then pay to have an independently funded newspaper. It's like paying twice for the same item. Jake said on 02/28/06 @ 04:57 PM: Most student newspapers who are independent but receive student fees use those fees as a subscription fee so they don't have to charge the students for the publication. Generally, at most daily papers, it's a VERY small percentage of their actual budget. My point about the Illini is that the folks who laid down the suspension are not on the school's payroll, but on the newspapers. That being said, I don't know enough about all the matters involved to form an informed opinion about it, but my gut instict says the editors, while stupid in their decision making, should not have been suspended (and the woman who laid down that decision shouldn't have done so). Again, that's based on the bit I know, so that may be totally off base. Sam said on 02/28/06 @ 06:06 PM: Are you aware that there are still two cases remaining that are related to the Hosty case? Also, that there is now a third case that was filed by different plantiffs against the same university (GSU)? Sam said on 02/28/06 @ 06:45 PM: "At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, student editors Acton Gorton and Chuck Prochaska printed six of the original 12 cartoons in the independent student paper The Daily Illini. The Chicago Tribune reported on February 14 that the Illini’s board of directors, composed of staff and students, dismissed Gorton and Prochaska for failing to consult with “other student editors and staff members” in making the decision to print the cartoons. The paper then ran an editorial apologizing for printing the cartoons and calling Gorton “a renegade editor who firmly believes that his will is also the will of the paper.” According to fire.org Sam said on 02/28/06 @ 06:47 PM: I was under the impression that they were suspended academically; but according to the FIRE article they were dismissed as editors... Post a comment |
What are you doing down here? Don't you have something better to do? Like Go Back To The Top of the page, or even see who created this site? This site is © 2001 - 2008 by the Utterly Boring folks at UtterlyBoring.com. Steal my content, as I probably did, too, just link to my site or the original site. Batteries not included. One size fits all. Not for off-road use. Not for internal use. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Technorati Profile.
