SPLC/ACP College Press Freedom Award: Call for Entries

The Student Press Law Center and Associated Collegiate Press co-sponsor the College Press Freedom Award to recognize the college student or student news medium that has demonstrated outstanding support for college press freedom. Entries for this year’s award, to be announced at the ACP/CMA fall convention in Louisville, will be accepted through July 1. See this SPLC web page for more details.

It’s the Law: Surveying Safely

By Mike Hiestand

What do you think of your landlord? How do you rate your professors? What’s the best and worst pizza joint in town? Reader surveys have become a popular and staple feature of many college newspapers. They can be informative, useful and entertaining. They often also provide information on local services, business people or products that no other media source is going to tackle. Unfortunately, such consumer surveys — particularly those about the bad landlords, the lousy professors or the cruddy pizza joints — can also be the source of some nasty legal problems — most of which can be avoided with extra care and effort.

Different surveys pose different levels of risk. In fact, when planning a survey, the issue that probably poses the biggest legal concern is whether your survey will be strictly a “ratings survey” or one where you will also include reader comments and/or additional staff reporting.

A survey that is purely based on numerical ratings or “grades” — as long as it is conducted fairly and reasonably — is the safest option. Such surveys skip the nitty gritty details of a specific problem or person and seek to provide readers with the “Big Picture,” an overview, for example, of all off-campus housing options and tenant experiences. Asking readers to rate their landlords and properties on a scale of 1-10, and then carefully tabulating and accurately reporting the results poses few legal risks (though, of course, you may still have to field angry phone calls from landlords whose properties or whose management styles have received bad marks.) Such subjective rankings would be treated by a court as opinion; and the law is clear that pure opinion cannot be the basis for a successful libel lawsuit. A landlord might be mad as hell and think it completely unfair that he received an average ranking of 1.5, but — absent hard proof of bad data collection or inaccurate reporting of the results — it’s pretty much “tough cookies” as far as the law is concerned.

Fairness is important — for legal, ethical and editorial reasons. If you have never conducted a survey, you owe it to your readers — and those being surveyed — to spend sufficient time learning how to do so fairly with the goal of obtaining the most accurate, unbiased results reasonably possible. That includes writing questions that do not lead or mislead, obtaining a fair sample of responses and accurately tabulating and reporting the results.

But while a ratings-only survey is generally safe, it can also be kind of boring and one-dimensional. Allowing readers to explain why they gave their landlord or professor a “2” (or a “10”) will usually make for more informative and interesting reading. But it also ups the ante considerably in terms of legal risk.

Once again, “pure opinion” statements made by respondents pose little risk. For example, a reader who says that “my apartment sucks” or “the professor is boring” isn’t saying much more than he did when he gave the subjects a rating of “1.” But the tenant who explains “my apartment sucks because the plumbing constantly overflows and the landlord has never responded to my telephone calls to fix it” is giving much more than his opinion; he’s reporting facts. And they are facts that are either true or false. That is, either the landlord never responded to complaints about an overflowing toilet, or she did. If evidence shows the tenant’s “facts” to be largely false, the landlord probably has a valid claim that her business reputation has been seriously damaged by the false comment and, if that comment has been published, that’s libel.

Moreover, if that comment has been republished by you in your print-based newspaper, that’s trouble for you — even though you’re just accurately repeating what was told to you by the tenant.

[A brief aside: If your survey is conducted and published entirely online, the law may provide important protections that may shield you and your news media organization from liability, even when that same “libelous” information — if reported in your print-based newspaper — could cost you dearly. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act states that providers and users of interactive computer services (e.g., which most courts now agree includes Web sites) are not liable for posting information provided by other sources. For example, a student news organization that posts a survey online that includes a space for readers to post additional comments on their own should be shielded from liability for those comments — even if they are, in fact, false and libelous — provided the news organization itself played no role in creating the comments (for example, by a staffer rewriting the comments that resulted in additional libel). A full discussion of the CDA is beyond the scope of this article, but much more information is available on the Student Press Law Center Web site. Still, it’s lousy journalism to post sloppy or misleading surveys and/or to allow readers to unfairly and falsely trash a person’s reputation online simply because the law provides liability shield. Ethical journalism should generally be blind to the type of media in which it is published.]

If you include reader comments along with the survey, you have to treat those comments just the same as if you or your staff were reporting the information under your newspaper’s byline, because that’s pretty much how a court is going to treat it. That, of course, can present some real problems because — unlike a story written by a seasoned reporter you trust — the source for most reader comments will probably be someone you don’t know — or at least don’t know very well. And that’s not an excuse that will get you very far in court.

Every comment must be carefully read. If the comment is a factual claim that could cause significant harm to a person’s reputation — and harm to a person’s business reputation is high up on that list — you have some choices to make. First, you might choose not to publish the comment. That’s obviously the easiest and safest, but if you do that too many times the usefulness of the survey is going to be diminished. If a landlord, in fact, doesn’t respond to serious tenant problems or if a professor regularly misses lectures, it would obviously be a good and helpful thing for your readers to know.

If you want to publish the comment, you’ll need to do more work, which includes the following:

1. Evaluate the source. That, of course, means you need to know who the source is. Whether or not you publish the source’s name is both an editorial decision and one on which you may need to reach agreement with the source, but running potentially defamatory comments from an unknown source is a recipe for disaster, at least when there aren’t other identifiable sources available to verify the claims. Assuming that you have tracked down the source, you need to evaluate her credibility. Does she have a reputation as a liar? Does she have any reason to harm the subject? And, of course, if you don’t believe the source you absolutely don’t want to publish her statement.

2. Track down other sources. If a respondent claims that a professor makes inappropriate sexual comments to some students, you’ve got a whole classroom full of other potential witnesses to that behavior. Reasonable reporting demands that you talk with at least a few of them about their take on the professor before allowing the publication of such serious charges.

3. If a situation allows for it, use your own eyes. If a tenant claims that garbage is strewn through the hallways of his apartment building or that the laundry room floor is slimy, .get off the phone and away from the keyboard and check out the place for yourself. Take a camera. It not only makes for better reading, it’s good proof should the landlord start making noise.

4. Whenever possible, ask for documents to back up the claims. Perhaps the tenant has written letters to the landlord voicing his complaints. Check them out. Public documents are even better (much better.) If, for example, a reader says that a particular pizza joint is a “disgusting dive with cockroaches everywhere,” it’s probably worth checking with the local health department to see how the restaurant has fared on its health inspections.

5. Avoid namecalling. Publishing comments that call the subject of the survey a “slumlord,” “tyrant,” “despot,” a “drunkard,” a Hitler (don’t ever use that one — there was only one Hitler) or describing the property as a “turd-infested hole” (all of these are actual terms used over the years), etc., may or may not be protected speech, but they practically challenge the subject to respond.

6. Generally avoid drawing legal conclusions. Remember that neither you nor the survey respondent are probably lawyers. Terms such as “fraud,” “blackmail,” “theft,” “discrimination,” “harassment,” etc. have specific legal meanings. Just because a professor seems to single out “cute” students for special treatment doesn’t necessarily mean he or she is guilty of sexual harassment.

7. Finally — and most importantly — if you are going to publish factual claims that are going to seriously damage someone’s reputation (or the reputation of a business), you must provide that person with an opportunity to respond prior to publication. Not only does this establish an essential element of fairness, it also provides you with an opportunity to catch — or at least confirm — parts of a story that may be subject to debate or question.

In the end, you may find that publishing a reader comment is simply more work than it’s worth. Or you may find that it’s better treated as a “news tip” for a more traditional news story. Both are valid responses. Surveys can provide useful information, but their role should be limited and never confused as being an acceptable or safe substitute for diligent reporting when the subject demands it.

Mike Hiestand is an attorney, based in the far, upper left corner of the “Lower 48,” and works as a legal consultant to the Student Press Law Center.

ACP implements changes to 2010 Individual Awards

ACP has implemented several changes to its 2010 Individual Awards in order to better accommodate member needs. The Story of the Year contest will be expanded into two separate entities: The Print Story of the Year contest and the Multimedia Story of the Year contest.

Print Story of the Year will include the same categories as previous years: News, Feature, Sports, Diversity and Editorial/Commentary. There is a limit of one entry per category per member publication. Print entries will be mailed to ACP.

Multimedia Story of the Year will include three categories for content online: News, Sports, Feature and Photo Slideshow. Multimedia stories must utilize two of the following elements: Text, audio, video, photos or interactive components such as a map or timeline. Multimedia Story of the Year entries must be entered online.

The Photo Slideshow category replaces the Picture Story category of the Photo Excellence contest in past years. Photo Slideshows are comprised of photos and a caption for each photo, with a limit of no more than 30 images per entry. Audio enhancement will not be considered by the judging team. Photos should be well edited and sequenced in a way that tells a story.

The deadline for all of the following contests is June 7, 2010 (received, not postmarked).

Download the ACP Individual Awards entry form (for mail-in categories: Print Story of the Year, Reporter of the Year, some Advertising categories)

Go to the ACP Individual Awards online entry form (for Multimedia Story of the Year, Photo Excellence, Design of the Year, Cartooning, some Advertising categories)

Download paper entry forms for ACP’s Newspaper Pacemaker and Magazine Pacemaker contests.

Any questions on contest changes may be directed to Kathy Huting, ACP contest coordinator, at kathy@studentpress.org.

2010 ACP Online Pacemaker Finalists

Contact Kathy Huting, ACP contest and critique coordinator, at kathy@studentpress.org.

View the list of finalists

50 finalists have been selected in the 2010 ACP Online Pacemaker contest out of a total of 242 entries. The contest has grown dramatically in recent years, with 2010 yielding a record total of entries and representing an increase of eight percent from 2009.

In past years, entries for three of the categories were divided based on websites’ corresponding print publication frequency. In 2010, sites were divided into the following new categories: over 10,000 student enrollment, under 10,000 enrollment, online-only and other (magazine, yearbook or broadcast).

The contest was judged by a panel of professionals with extensive online media experience. Judges noted that the most successful sites displayed excellence in multimedia story telling, writing and editing, site design, in-depth and complete coverage, interactivity, and graphics and photography.

Online Pacemaker winners will be announced for the first time at the ACP/CMA National College Media Convention in Louisville on Oct. 30, 2010. Comments from the judging team will be posted shortly after the convention.

ACP partners with College Media Matters blog

News about college media just got a wider audience. To increase the coverage of what’s happening in the world of college media, Associated Collegiate Press has joined the well-established blog College Media Matters as a financial sponsor.

College Media Matters aims to tell the story of the modern college media — information on influential, controversial, innovative, and newsworthy matters impacting contemporary college media worldwide. As sponsor, ACP will connect the blog with a wider audience, and the blog’s writers will have access to what’s happening in the field through ACP members. A feed of the blog’s posts will be featured prominently on the ACP website.

College Media Matters is written primarily by Dan Reimold, Ph.D., a college journalism scholar who has written and spoken on the issues and research related to the college press.

“I believe in the power of college media and the idealism and passion of student journalists,” Reimold said. “This blog aims to tell their story, as much as possible in their own words.”

The partnership comes at a time of change in journalism and especially in student media that face major challenges such as erosion of advertising, elimination of funding, administrative censorship, and the evolution of platforms.

“College Media Matters is a valuable resource because it raises awareness of these issues, highlights innovations and shines a light where some would prefer things be kept in the dark,” Logan Aimone, ACP executive director, said. “We need a news source like this to aggregate what’s happening in the specialized field of college media.”

For more information, contact Logan Aimone (612) 625-7359.

2009 ACP Yearbook Pacemaker Finalists

Contact Kathy Huting, ACP contest and critique coordinator, at kathy@studentpress.org

View the winners list

View video of the judging panel discussing criteria

55 ACP member yearbooks entered the 2009 ACP Yearbook Pacemaker contest, 14 of which were selected as finalists. Four judges with extensive professional and scholastic journalism experience traveled to Minneapolis in January to make the selections.

Judges considered the following factors when selecting the finalists: thorough coverage and content, sophisticated design, exemplary writing and editing and outstanding photography.

Entries were divided proportionately into two categories based on page count. After an initial cutting round, judges whittled the entries down to the top 14.
?Winners will be announced for the first time at the ACP/CMA Fall National College Media Convention in Louisville on Saturday, Oct. 30, 2010.

When law and ethics collide

By Mike Hiestand

Law and ethics have a curious relationship. The law tells you what you can do. Ethics, on the other hand, is concerned mainly with what you should do. Fortunately, they usually work hand in hand. Indeed, one of the things I quickly discovered in law school is that you can pretty much guess what the law will be about 80 percent of the time — without ever picking up a book. If both common sense and the little person on your shoulder tell you that Path A is the one you should follow, chances are good that courts have come to the same conclusion.

What that means, of course, is that a lawyer invests three years of her life and spends gobs of money going to law school to figure out what to do in just 20 percent of her work.

Much of that 20 percent can easily be blamed on lawmakers and lobbyists who too often push legislation without regard to either common sense or ethics: they’re looking out for themselves. For the balance of cases, however, it’s usually more complicated.

Sometimes that’s because neither common sense nor ethics — or even greed — provide an easy answer. In fact, sometimes you find that the law tells you can or must take Path A, but your personal or professional ethics is saying Path B, or perhaps C, is the one you should stick to.

Because of the importance Americans have traditionally placed on a free press and the strong legal protections of the First Amendment, journalists probably confront more of these legal/ethical questions than most. The following are some of the more common.

(Note that in the discussion that follows, we’ll assume that censorship of the material by school officials is not at issue, only whether it can or should be published. Administrative censorship of otherwise lawful content is, of course, a big, separate topic for another day.)

Publishing minor names/photos. This is unquestionably the issue that most frequently raises a legal/ethics question for the reporters we speak with at the Student Press Law Center. As with most of the issues that follow, the legal answer to this question is actually pretty straightforward. More than 30 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of journalists to publish the names/photos of minors in newsworthy stories as long as the information is “lawfully obtained” and truthfully reported. That is the same standard that applies to adults. So, in covering a bona fide news story involving a minor, your energy and attention should focus not on the law — where the answer is a clear “yes you can print the name” — but on whether or not publishing a minor’s name or image in a particular case is editorially appropriate and ethically sound. Many news organizations — following their own written or unwritten editorial policies — do not, for example, identify minors involved in less serious criminal conduct. The rationale is generally the belief that young people, simply because they are young and naturally lack experience or judgment, make mistakes and should not be stigmatized for life for something stupid they did in their youth. That makes sense. But it is not a decision compelled by law and it is not necessarily one that your news organization must accept as its standard operating procedure. There are big news stories — such as a school shooting or a brazen crime committed by the child of a prominent public figure — where many journalists would argue that publishing the name of the high school-aged suspect is editorially required and ethically justified. Though it may make your job more difficult, it is up to you and your staff — not a court — to figure out where the line should be drawn in your newsroom. (The Poynter Institute’s Al Tompkins has a useful checklist of factors to consider when making this decision. In fact, the Poynter Institute, a school and resource for journalists, is a great first-stop when confronted with any ethical question.)

Publishing victim names. As with the publication of minor names, courts have also generally upheld the legal right of news media to accurately publish victim names/photos in newsworthy stories. While some states passed laws prohibiting the identification of sexual assault victims, these laws have been routinely struck down as unconstitutional when challenged. So again, it is up to individual news organizations to determine when or if to publish such information. While many still do not publish victim names, particularly victims of sexual assault, some newsroom policies allow for the accuser to be identified where a case is dismissed or where the accused is found not guilty.

Publishing accident/crime/war scene photos or interviews. Reporters and photographers are regularly called upon to cover tragedy. Events such as a drowning or a deadly car wreck are news. So are murders, rapes, serious beatings and the like. So is war. In covering tragic, but newsworthy events, journalists often end up with images or stories that are hard to look at and hear in the newsroom let alone publish or broadcast for their audience. Still, in general, the law protects news media if they decide it is something their readers should know. Victims and the victims’ loved ones may be upset by the decision, but it is a tough decision that generally must be made by editors, not judges and juries.

Publishing controversial ads. Whether it’s an “issue ad” that promotes white supremacy or a risqué ad for an “adult toy” store or strip club, the First Amendment protects the publication of commercial speech as long as it concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading (and courts have traditionally allowed a fair share of leeway on this latter requirement). The ideas espoused by white supremacists or holocaust deniers, for example, are generally protected (the First Amendment protects one’s right to say stupid things) and sex toys are legal — at least for a college-aged audience. At the same time, as long as it is the student staff making the final decision, student media are under no obligation to provide an advertiser (or any outside contributor for that matter) space on their pages, website or broadcast. It is — lucky you — your call.

Publishing nudity. The law prohibits the publication of obscenity. But obscenity — contrary to what many believe — is not a descriptive term (as in “those photos of near-naked cheerleaders are obscene!”) It is a legal classification. And to be classified as legally obscene, material generally has to be very, very explicit. In fact, when speaking of material aimed at an adult audience (18 years old and above), obscenity is so explicit and so beyond what student media do that in my nearly two decades working with them, I’ve still only seen one example that maybe…perhaps… even came close (and no, I’m not telling.) Mere nudity — photos of campus streakers, spring break wet T-shirt contests and the like — does not constitute obscenity and the decision about whether to publish such material is an editorial call. (It’s also probably a financial call due to the number of readers and advertisers you might offend. But that, too, is separate issue.)

As a media law lawyer, I think I probably have the easy job. I get to tell journalists who call with a legal question either, “yes” you can legally publish such information or “no” the law will probably not be on your side if you do. Once my job ends, however, the really hard work actually begins.

Mike Hiestand is an attorney, based in the far, upper left corner of the “Lower 48,” and works as a legal consultant to the Student Press Law Center.

Thomas E. Rolnicki: 1949-2009

(Now updated with funeral/memorial information and obituary link: see below.)

rolnicki-obit.jpgThomas E. Rolnicki, former executive director of the National Scholastic Press Association, died Dec. 20. He was 60.

Rolnicki was NSPA’s executive director from 1980 until 2006. In his capacity as director, he wrote and edited several publications for NSPA and its college branch, the Associated Collegiate Press. He was a co-author of the journalism textbook “Scholastic Journalism.” During his career, he spoke at journalism conventions and workshops throughout the United States and internationally. He received the Carl Towley Award and Medal of Merit awards from the Journalism Education Association, the Gold Key from the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, and a Newspaper Fund Merit Award.

Immediately prior to joining NSPA, Rolnicki was editor of publications for the Office of Admissions at the University of Minnesota. He also was director of JEA’s Summer Seminar for teachers and other professionals. Rolnicki had taught journalism courses and directed summer journalism workshops at Iowa State University, where he also served as technical, editorial and business adviser for publications.

He had also taught journalism, English and photography and was adviser to student publications at two high schools, one in Iowa and one in Wisconsin. Rolnicki had served JEA as vice president and as Midwest regional director, and he had been treasurer of the Iowa School Press Association.

Rolnicki received his master’s degree in journalism and mass communication from Iowa State University. He received a B.S. degree in journalism and secondary education from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

He was a native of Wausau, Wis., where funeral services are pending.

UPDATE: Visitation will be 9:30-11:30 a.m., Saturday, Jan. 2, 2010, at St. Ann’s Catholic Church, 700 W. Bridge Street in Wausau, Wis., 54401. A funeral mass will follow at 11:30 a.m. at the church.

The family is requesting memorial gifts be made in Rolnicki’s name to the Student Press Law Center. Condolences can be mailed to the family at the church or to his mother, Polly Rolnicki, 817 N. First Ave., Wausau, Wis., 54401.

Click here to view Rolnicki’s obituary in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

New for members: ACP Guide to Freelancing

We’re pleased to provide our members with a new publication, the ACP Guide to Freelancing, which was e-mailed to members last week. Its pages are filled with the basics of how to make it as a freelancer from crafting the query to negotiating a rate.

This new publication replaces ACP’s Guide to Internships. We discontinued that publication because so many media outlets had discontinued or cut their paid internship programs or the newsroom coordinator of the programs. We regret that we can no longer offer this guide, but the new freelancing guide does meet some of the same goals of helping college journalists gain experience in a media career.

ACP/NSPA adds two new board members

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Logan Aimone, executive director, (612) 625-7359

National Scholastic Press Association Board of Directors adds two members

MINNEAPOLIS (Sept. 28, 2009) — The Board of Directors of the National Scholastic Press Association (NSPA) has appointed two new members to its Board of Directors. The two new directors join nine directors. The new members have two-year terms.

Chris Ison is an award-winning journalist and a former reporter and editor for the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. He was the paper’s assistant managing editor for investigative projects for three years and won a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting in 1990. He has won numerous national, regional and state awards. Ison was editor-in-chief at The Minnesota Daily at the University of Minnesota. Now, as an associate professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Ison teaches public affairs reporting, news reporting and writing, advanced reporting methods and media ethics. Ison is one of three representatives from the University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication outlined in NSPA’s charter.

David Therkelsen is currently the executive director of Crisis Connection, a nonprofit agency that provides crisis counseling by telephone. From 1978-2006, he served in a variety of senior management roles with the American Red Cross, including CEO of the St. Paul Area chapter. He holds a B.A. in journalism and political science form Metropolitan State University and the University of Minnesota and a M.B.A. from the University of St. Thomas. He also writes, teaches and lectures in journalism and public relations. Therkelsen has participated on NSPA’s Finance and Investment Committee for the past year and joins the Board of Directors as treasurer.

About NSPA
NSPA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership organization headquartered and incorporated in Minnesota. Memberships for middle school, junior high school and high school student media are organized under the Minnesota High School Press Association division of NSPA. Memberships for college, university and professional and technical school student media are organized under the Associated Collegiate Press division of NSPA. Memberships are open to all student media at public and private schools at an annual membership fee.
Each division of NSPA provides journalism education training programs, publishes journalism education materials, provides media critique and recognition programs for members, provides information on developments in journalism and student media and provides a forum for members to communicate with others and share their work. NSPA and its divisions cooperate with other student media associations and other non-student groups and businesses that share its mission to educate and recognize the work of student journalists, to improve the quality of student media and to foster careers in media.

# # #