Kick Me, I'm a Journalist

The first thing I teach students in Intro to Journalism is that democracy depends on a free and independent press brave enough to hold power to account. Freedom of speech as a tenet of democracy is the assurance that we can criticize our government, question its motives, and disagree with those elected/appointed to or running for office.

My students explore how people in power behave differently under the cloak of secrecy than they do out in the sunshine. We discuss how it is journalists' job to shine a spotlight into the dark and dusty corners where self-interest and obfuscation lurk and thrive.

We examine how the journalist's responsibility to call out questionable actions is often a thankless job that requires a tough shell and a firm ethical compass.

And this brings us to the second thing I teach in Intro to Journalism: the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics:

1) Seek the truth and report it.
2) Minimize harm.
3) Act independently.
4) Be accountable and transparent.

As I talk with young people about the noble, sometimes dangerous, often criticized role of the journalist, we focus on the essential characteristics of neutrality and balance in reporting. We talk openly about the need for journalists to accept criticism graciously, to be accountable when we make mistakes--but to refrain from allowing criticism to influence our core values of seeking and reporting truth.

In the age of the internet, everyone owns a "printing press," which allows anyone to "mass communicate" without necessarily adhering to the trusted standards that allow readers/viewers to depend on NEWS as unbiased and true. We see this on both ends of the political spectrum. But my job as an educator is to hold up the shining light of what good journalism is, does, and should be.

So I am on alert when the president repeatedly maligns journalists as "crooked," "failing," and "among the most dishonest human beings on earth." This administration's war against media seems intent not just on challenging the press, but on shredding its reputation, morale, and identity.

As a journalism teacher, I am called to defend my students, myself, and the profession of journalism as a whole. We need brave, ethical journalists now more than ever, but journalism teachers face the daunting task of persuading our best and brightest to join "the most dishonest human beings on earth."

It is the tradition of journalism to refrain from using our own platform to argue with our critics. Rather, we report the news objectively, we clearly label and confine opinion to specified roles in our publications, and we invite opposing views to be heard (hence the OP-ED page), rather than squelched.

Yet this tradition, when pitted against the onslaught of current press defamation, threatens to pave the way for a culture of weakened, muted journalism, where the bullhorn of those in power is all we'll hear. We need the public, our readers, to speak up on our behalf. #SpeakUpForJournalism #PayForQualityJournalism #ThankAJournalist #DontKickMe

Words Matter

As a high-school English teacher, my preeminent challenge is to help students become critical thinkers. That is, we use reading, writing, speaking, and discussion to examine strengths and flaws in our own thinking and the thinking of others. 

How do we do this? By developing sensitivity to language: its connotations, its sounds, its combinations. It is right that we call our field "Language Arts" because it all centers on the language, the words used to shape thought.

I am daily pushing kids to go to the text to provide evidence for their conclusions. You "feel" the character is arrogant? Fine. Now look to the text to prove it.  You "believe" a writer is biased? Show me the words, explain the context, that grounds your reasoning.

It is this acuity to language that will allow my students to become thinkers who can navigate the complexities of the world.

I remember an episode in a college lit course. A student had proffered an interpretation of a poem that could not be sustained by the text. When the professor pointed this out, the student complained that all interpretations were equally valid. 

The professor kindly but firmly explained that interpretations supported by evidence are given more credence than interpretations supported by "I feel" and "I believe."

I'm thinking hard this week about what "interpretations supported by evidence" means. It would be a luxury to close my door to the world and ignore the headlines that fly in the face of what I teach: 

Trump believes millions voted illegally, WH says -- but provides no proof (CNN)

White House Pushes 'Alternative Facts." Here Are the Real Ones. (NYT)

However, if we degrade the meaning of words such as "true" and "fake," if we allow unsubstantiated claims to carry the same weight as evidence-based reasoning, if we ignore flagrant use of words to contort and distort meaning, we must accept the price of our ignorance. And that price? Consider this passage by George Orwell:  

“In a way, the world−view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Today in my language arts classroom, we will still demand evidence, scrutinize language, and think critically. Words matter. Join us?