Students in a Rutgers University investigative journalism course were told to stop writing about on-campus issues after officials complained about getting pressed for information and other issues. The Newark Star-Ledger reported recently that school administrators banned on-campus investigative reporting assignments because they believed "students would learn more by working on stories outside the university."
Officials said that reporters for the campus' independent student newspaper could pursue on-campus stories but that assigning students to investigate activity on-campus was apparently not appropriate for a class.
The news report claims:
"Though university officials said the ban of on-campus investigative stories was not due to the content of the pieces produced in the course last semester, some students said Rutgers officials are trying to silence aggressive student reporters."
Jeff Jarvis' blog "The Buzz Machine" raises an important question:
"Why shouldn't the university be the subject of reporting as well? If someone doesn't like the way an interview is going, they have the same right anyone has to end the interview. If the story is bad, it not only will get a bad grade but won't get printed (the student paper didn't print all the stories out of the class)."
My gut-level response to this story was the same feeling I get about how the mainstream media quietly silences itself (self-censorship) out of fear of pissing off the wrong people. Rutgers' actions are about CHILLING the messenger first, before SHOOTING the messenger.
What I get out of the university's banning of on-campus issues is that " the powers that be" want to do a little teaching of their own. They want to make sure that journalism teachers learn an important lesson about what they can and cannot teach students. The big lesson to be learned from this story is not that Rutgers, like other universities, have banned an investigative reporting students from honing their craft on-campus. The big lesson is about how easy it is for officials to attempt control content, even if they say it is not about content. The big lesson students will learn from this ban is that if you want to play in the sandbox you need to know who owns the sand. University officials and the journalism school know who own the sand. Now students know too.
You'll need to do a little of your own homework to understand what this story is about. Here are two links: Hitting Too Close to Home from Inside Higher Ed and David Liss' blog Liss is More.
Liss published an article written by one of the journalism students on his blog after The Daily Targum, the campus student newspaper refused to run it.
Why?
The story was an investigative piece on college athletics and how Rutgers student/athletes were getting special academic treatment. Imagine my surprise.....
Chilled not shak'n: The Buster Flap
While on the subject of civil liberties and a free society, commentator Bill O'Reilly is taking on Buster the Bunny, PBS and the World. In his column "How did Buster get mixed up in this mess?" O'Reilly fumes about an epidode in which the rabid rabbit goes off in search of maple syrup in Vermont and finds himself surrounded by lesbians.
O'Reilly concludes:
The sexualization of children is one of America's great scandals. Kids today are blasted out of a G-rated life far too early thanks to a greedy, irresponsible media and fanatical special interest groups. Yes, there is bigotry against gays, and kids must be taught to reject that at an appropriate age. There is also crazy stuff coming from some religious zealots who believe SpongeBob is cruising gay bars in Key West. That kind of nonsense diminishes the argument that young children need to be protected from too much information, which they do.
So I am teed off at Buster the bunny because this is all his fault. The guy went up to Vermont to get some syrup and got stuck in a huge jam. Buster should absolutely stay out of sexual politics. It's OK to be happy, Buster, just don't be gay.
Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that O'Reilly finds it in his best interest to bash gays (always an easy target), but now he is also now trying to silence webloggers from linking to his column. Most importantly, O'Reilly has a right to his opinion and this must be respected.
At the same time, however, O'Reilly's lawyers have sent out cease and desist orders to bloggers who have re-posted his commentary to their sites. Linking to the pundit's column is one thing, lifting the entire commentary violates copyright laws. With regard to linking, in March 200o a federal judge ruled that hyperlinking is not a copyright violation. Internet Ruling: Hypertext Linking does not violate Copyright. Using excerpts from an author's work, however, is acceptable in journalism to provide context.
What got this whole thing started was a letter to PBS from Margaret Spellings, the new Secretary of Education. Spellings wrote the President of PBS to voice concerns over the Buster episode.
We believe the "Sugartime!" episode does not come within these purposes or within the intent of Congress, and would undermine the overall objective of the Ready-To-Learn program -- to produce programming that reaches as many children and families as possible. Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the life-styles portrayed in this episode. Congress' and the Department's purpose in funding this programming certainly was not to introduce this kind of subject matter to children, particularly through the powerful and intimate medium of television.
The blogs have been busy on this one.
Note to self:
"Chill messenger before shooting."
Links to the Buster Flap:
Bluster Over 'Buster' Washington Post
The Future of Buster the Bunny and Other PBS Children's Shows Threatened by the Bush Administration Newshounds
Buster the bunny pops on his backpack, visits lesbian family and starts row The Guardian Unlimited