Ok, so I am a bit horrified by this article and what happened. Justice Kennedy, a champion of the first Amendment, gave a speech and then would not allow the H.S. paper where he gave it to print the article without his approval. While I realize it is a good practice to let the subject check an article about himself for accuracy, what Justice Kennedy did is exactly what the director of the Student Press Law Center said it was: an exercise of IMAGE CONTROL, not the teaching of journalism.
Justice Kennedy (or his law clerks, doesn't matter as far as I am concerned) seemingly wanted to CHANGE what he said to make himself sound better, not make sure what was printed was what he said. To me this is simply blatantly unethical in journalism to allow a subject to completely change what they said after the fact. I worked for a place that practiced this (and everyone would be horrified by where it was), either way their reasoning is that the subject doesn't need to check for accuracy, we simply need to change what they said to make them sound better (and sell-able).
Here's the article: From Justice Kennedy, a Lesson in Journalism
Also, here is a link to something written for USAToday about this incident, its the second part of his article and I completely agree. Scrubbing quotes
NB C-notes
-
From the WaPo:
NEW YORK -- The Society of Professional Journalists condemned NBC News for
practicing "checkbook journalism" by chartering a jet that carrie...
14 years ago
5 comments:
That's downright horrifying.
It's good to see that the high school kids recognized the blasphemous nature of Kennedy's actions.
What is there to be gained by the paper, even if only a high school one, by allowing the truth to be altered in the name of maintaining or otherwise creating an image? There should be no fear of printing what someone has said so long as it's the whole truth.
It's disgusting that this is a practice anywhere.
There are times when journalists get quotes wrong or make errors in reporting; I'm sure high school students aren't immune. While I think that sensoring or changing what is said to make it read better sends the wrong message to students in particular, I do believe that Justices have a greater responsibility with what they say. Their opinions and decisions can affect the laws of the land.
I don't think the students should be forced to change or scrub his direct quotes, or their interpretations of them, but I don't see a problem reviewing what is written.
Journalists sometimes follow up with sources to make sure they correctly attributed quotes and meanings. How is this so different?
You could look at this situation both ways.Yes it is ironic that a champion of the first amendment would ask to approve an article written by a journalist.It surely seems like a bad message to a student.On the other hand ,being these are students, and they are novices in the field of journalism I don't think checking their story is inappropriate.Although,I am sure that at such an elite school they are well taught and highly intellectual ,they may misconstrue something the Justice may have said or intimated.In today's world, where every word is scrutinized and people easily vilified , I can understand his concern for his words being properly interpreted,particularly in his position.I don't think he was as much looking to inhibit free speech, but just making sure that the amateur reporting was accurate.
You could look at this situation both ways.Yes it is ironic that a champion of the first amendment would ask to approve an article written by a journalist.It surely seems like a bad message to a student.On the other hand ,being these are students, and they are novices in the field of journalism I don't think checking their story is inappropriate.Although,I am sure that at such an elite school they are well taught and highly intellectual ,they may misconstrue something the Justice may have said or intimated.In today's world, where every word is scrutinized and people easily vilified , I can understand his concern for his words being properly interpreted,particularly in his position.I don't think he was as much looking to inhibit free speech, but just making sure that the amateur reporting was accurate.
My only thing is we don't know what the original article looked like vs the finished product. At first glance it sounds like scrubbing, and even if it was indeed just that, no high school (at least none that I know) would ever dare question a Supreme Ct. Justice on it.
Post a Comment