|
Publishing Policy
"It is more important
to get it right, than get it first"
By Lon Woodbury
Emotional Growth/Therapeutic Schools
and Programs have received increased media attention
lately, which has created a dilemma for us at Woodbury
Reports Inc. Many of the writers in the mainstream media
are unfamiliar with the dynamics and special challenges
of working with this very difficult population of
self-destructive teens, and some write in the tradition
of the early 20th century sensation-seeking yellow
journalism. It is the intention and direction of
Woodbury Reports to report in a fair and responsible
manner, the sensitive events regarding schools and
programs that work with struggling teens. In doing so,
we find two major and somewhat opposing demands made on
us in terms of reporting these events with fairness and
responsibility. Achieving this goal is further
complicated by the challenges of defining our publishing
policy as it applies to the relatively new territory of
the Internet since we find our website:
www.strugglingteens.com composes a large part of our
readership.
On the one hand, we are a kind of trade publication.
That is, we are sympathetic with those quality schools
and programs that are providing intervention for teens
whose destructive behaviors are damaging to themselves,
their families and their communities. We feel these
schools and programs are an important part of the
national effort to help our struggling teens turn their
behaviors around to become responsible adults. We also
recognize that there are some programs and services that
don't adhere to professional standards and probably
shouldn't be working with children. Nevertheless, there
are pressures on us to only report the positive.
On the other hand, since many of our readers are trying
to avoid placing their child in an irresponsible school
or program, we want to report problems so our readers
can have all the information possible, including
negative reports. We also receive pressure to publish
every rumor or report that casts schools and programs
for struggling teens in a negative light.
If we exclusively followed the first demand, we could
simply become an apologist for all schools and programs,
thereby depriving parents researching schools and
programs of all the information they need to make
appropriate placement decisions. On the other hand, if
we reported everything the media or activists publish,
we could simply become a tool for those critics and
self-styled child advocates that believe any negative
accusation, no matter how outrageous or unfair, again
depriving parents of the balanced information they need
to make a responsible and intelligent placement
decision.
One way we approach this dilemma is our editorial
policy: "It is more important to get it right, than get
it first." The media's attempt to be the first to report
a story contributes to much of the inaccurate and false
reporting that goes on in this country. This brings to
mind two examples where the effort to be first, made an
important difference. The first is the Washington D.C.
area sniper story of last month. Because the media had
so little real information to report, they gave
significant time to "Profilers". Apparently based at
least partly on their totally wrong projections, a
policeman stopped and talked to the men who were
eventually apprehended, but let them go because they did
not fit the "Profile." A credible argument can be made
that four additional people died because this wrong
"Profile" information was heavily presented by the Media
in an attempt to beat the competition and get the story
first.
In another example, part of the Florida election mess in
the year 2000 was possibly caused by the media's rush to
predict the state's results before all the votes were
cast. Their announcements possibly discouraged many last
minute voters from voting, having an immeasurable impact
on the final results.
In both these examples, and there are many more,
misleading or inaccurate information was published in
the effort to be the first to publish a story.
For this reason, we try to avoid contributing to public
misinformation by not publishing or linking to a story
from a credible source that is negative to a school or
program, until the program has had the chance to also
present their perspective. This is more easily
accomplished with schools and programs that have chosen
to work with us, since we know whom to call. However,
the opportunity to tell their story in our online and
written publications is open to all schools and programs
that might be mentioned in other media.
The credibility of the source of the information is
important. We are inclined to accept community and city
newspapers and their Internet outlets, as credible
sources, because they must maintain a reputation for
accurate reporting, to insure their own survival.
Usually, before publication, a reporter's story must be
approved by an editor and sometimes passed through the
legal department, and frequently, fact- checkers as
well. In addition, there are journalistic standards and
peer review to which a reporter wishes to adhere.
Falsified facts, plagiarism, and consistently inaccurate
stories will get a reporter terminated, because
consistently inaccurate reporting will cost readership,
making it impossible for a newspaper to survive. In
addition, most newspapers have been around for some time
and we know who they are and how to contact them. The
same applies to a few Internet publications that have
established themselves based on traditional journalistic
standards. While they may not always get the story
right, and may have a publication slant, at least there
are considerable pressures on them to aim for accurate,
balanced and responsible reporting.
Unfortunately this is not always the case for many
Internet sites and some print publications. It seems
most of the sites on the Internet that are devoted to
struggling teens are hosted by either ex-students or
self- styled child advocates. They often have an agenda,
emphasizing only stories that agree with their advocacy
purpose, and are quick to pre-judge and demonize schools
and the people working for the schools and programs.
Since these sites and publications I am alluding to are
not fair and give little or no pretext of balance, they
can’t be accepted as credible.
It is our hope that by following this rather cautious
publication policy, we have a better chance to get the
story right, even if we often don’t get it first!
|
