COMMENTARY: Introducing the First Amendment and prior review
On a good day, a student journalist faces more issues than their newspaper publishes. From dodgy university administration to increased budget cuts, the typical student journalist is forced to work under conditions that would frustrate even the most seasoned professional.
However, no issue is as threatening and damaging as university administration, faculty and staff demanding a prior review of our articles.
Firstly, prior review is simply unconstitutional.
Unlike most Americans, journalists actually know what the First Amendment means and they will fight until they are blue in the face to defend it.
In order to have a truly free press, journalists and their newsrooms must be able to keep all meetings, interviews and editorial board decisions private from anyone who might want to control the narrative. At the university level, this means that anyone not part of the student journalism department, students and their adviser(s) only, is not allowed to demand reading any article before it is published.
If someone, even those interviewed, demands to see the article before it goes to print or before it is published, those people are violating the Bill of Rights. Not only is it unethical to demand to see a student journalist’s work of any kind before it is finished as UHCL is a public university, but it is also unconstitutional.
This fact does not stop people from trying to require students to give them a “sneak peek” at the article oftentimes in exchange for an interview, a quid pro quo of sorts. But the practice is not limited to those being interviewed; sometimes people who have nothing to do with the article request prior review.
It is understandable for those being quoted to want to ensure their words are not taken out of context. The Signal’s editor-in-chief does allow reporters the choice of sending interviewees a transcript of their interview as an olive branch of sorts. However, this is completely at the discretion of the reporter whether or not they want to do this, and some reporters choose not to because sources might want to alter their quotes or because the reporter does not feel comfortable doing it. Newspapers are the first record of history and altering quotes distorts that record.
Whether or not a reporter for The Signal wants to offer a transcript of quotes is the reporter’s decision. The Signal’s Editorial Board completely supports the reporter’s constitutional right to choose.
Secondly, prior review disrupts the production process.
Since student journalists – really, all journalists – work on extremely tight deadlines, any delays can completely derail an article and result in the article not being published at all.
At The Signal, when an individual demands prior review, the reporter has to explain they have a constitutional right to refuse. If the individual withholds an interview or makes further demands, the issue goes straight to the editor-in-chief, executive editor and the adviser(s).
When this happens, production on the article completely stalls out. Resolution of this issue can take anywhere between a day and two months, with most cases taking a few weeks. At that point, the article can be rendered null and void, and the paper loses credibility.
Finally, demanding prior review is harmful
Yes, students and student journalists will make mistakes. Journalists at the New York Times and Washington Post also make mistakes. If a reporter does make a mistake, a correction is issued.
The editors and reporters are acutely aware of the repercussions of their mistakes. Any student-run publication feels the weight for years after a mistake is made even if a correction is made post-haste. It is never the intent of any journalist to intentionally make a mistake.
When someone asks for prior review of an article, they are also sending a subliminal message to student journalists: that the student is not good enough to write this article without being wrong. This is extremely demoralizing on so many levels.
Student journalists join their student newsroom so they can learn. Demanding a prior review of a student journalist’s work signals to the reporter that they cannot fail and denies the chance of learning from mistakes.
Insisting on prior review also undermines and disregards the editors who painstakingly comb through every article, every fact and every word to make sure a piece is ready for publication.
Unfortunately, mistakes still happen in both the writing and copy-editing processes. A single mistake like the misspelling of a name can lead to years of resentment. While these effects can last for multiple editorial boards, it does provide a learning experience for the editors to do better and to be better.
When university administration, faculty or staff try to manhandle student journalists at any level, they are exerting a gross misuse of their power over students. Asking or demanding for prior review of an article, demeans and belittles student journalists, and disrupts a newsroom’s production schedule, and knowingly or not, infringes upon the students’ constitutional right to free speech.
The only silver lining of the dark gray cloud of prior review is that student journalists – both reporters and editors – receive additional learning experiences when they have to repeatedly explain a journalist’s First Amendment rights and educate the university community about prior review.
