Broadening Discussions (even after victory)

I was very excited to see President Tom Rochon rescinded the media policy this week. It was an unfair policy that seemed to be more for a corporation rather than a college. 

However, in our celebration I think we must also keep a skeptical eye on the top to bottom hierarchy this institution seems to be embracing in all areas of the college. Yes, we won the battle but not the war. We should not forget that the reason Rochon terminated the policy was because the Society of Professional Journalist’s panel members discussion with the president and the board. It was not because of faculty discontent. It was not because of student protests. 

We are in an institution that hears us but is not listening. Senior Rob Flaherty said it best in this week’s Ithacan article: “I don’t want the repeal to take away from broader discussions that need to happen on campus about the decision-making process here and the sort of perceived corporatization and centralization of campus.” 

An Undefinable Profession

Things are not always simple, not always black and white.

Media today has evolved from the naturalized and normalized way we think about journalists and news in general. This change is largely thanks to the internet. Now virtually anyone can contribute content and news stories, and then spread them to a global audience. However, many bloggers are facing opposition when seeking the same rights and access as other professional, mainstream media outlet journalists.


Mark Brunster of Laske Oswego is a blogger who understands this opposition greatly because he is currently facing it.

According to Oregonian: "As the author of political blog Loaded Orygun, Bunster insisted at a Lake Oswego City Council meeting that he was a member of the news media and therefore, under Oregon statute, allowed to sit in on executive session meetings. Lacking a clear policy on the issue, Lake Oswego city councilors asked Bunster to leave...Lake Oswego is considering adopting a policy that would define who qualifies as a member of the news media." 

Bloggers represent a myriad of local voices. They also do reporting and can sometimes get access into events that mainstream press cannot. Just because all bloggers may not be professional journalists, it doesn't mean they are not committing acts of journalism. Who are we to censor voices trying to get news out-- which by implementing this policy they would be legalizing the discrimination against bloggers and other smaller media outlets in their event coverage thereby censoring their content?

Look at one of the most influential political blogs today: Talking Points Memo. It started as a one man band, and was built to the huge success and large staff it has today. Would TPM have been able to succeed if a similar policy was in affect on a national level? Probably not.

People in support of Lake Oswego's policy have concerns about defining open and closed meeting sessions, City Attorney David Powell included.

According to the Oregonian, '"Does it mean that any individual can come into closed session?" asked Powell, who penned the policy based on one Columbia County uses. "It's not a closed session anymore. It's not saying individuals can't report on the news or City Council, but is that the individual the Legislature meant?"'

The Legislature defined the "individual" during a time when the Internet was not even a twinkle in technology's eye. I believe we should take a loose interpretation because of this change in times.

I am not sure if I would call bloggers or citizen journalists actual, professional journalists,  however if someone is willing to commit an act of journalism than government (big or small) has no ground to stop them. We need to stop trying to define everything and come to accept that with the emergence of the internet also came some confusing shades of gray.

Is IC's New Media Policy Censorship?

I closed my laptop, dumbfounded at the email I had just read. Effective immediately, Ithaca College changed their media policy for student media on campus. A list of 84 faculty members now must be contacted via the media relations department, specifically David Maley, if a reporter would like an interview with them involving Ithaca College or their policies. In an email, President Tom Rochon said:

"Note that this policy is strictly limited to the administrators listed here AND to instances where you want to interview them about IC policies or college developments.  The procedure for speaking with all faculty, all students, all third parties and all staff not listed in this document is unchanged -- you simply contact them. The procedure for speaking with anyone on this list about any topic not related to IC policies or college developments is also unchanged -- simply contact us."

This is the first problem I have with this new policy. One of the reasonings for the change is to not distract faculty bombarded with requests from their work. Yet, they specify the type of requests that have to go through Media Relations and which ones do not. Journalists are supposed to be the watchdogs to their government. Bringing the scale down to the college level, shouldn't we student journalists then be acting as the watchdogs for the college and its administration?

This reminds me of the CNN/war general controversy we discussed in class. CNN boasted they spoke directly with the White House and got all of their sources for commentary on the war approved by the governemnt. CNN was under direct fire by many journalists, especially those in the independent media field, because the government could coach the sources on exactly the perspective on the war they wanted spread to the masses. Isn't this exactly what can happen now when sourcing must go through the media relations department? Why else would interviews involving IC policies be the only interviews they care about setting up? All other interview requests that do not have to do with Ithaca College policies can go directly to the administrator without the middle man. Is this a form of censorship?

President Rochon continued in the email to say this would not effect the quality of student reporting.

"It is explicitly NOT the intention of this policy to limit access to IC administrators, to prevent you from pursuing certain stories, or to cause an unwarranted time delay in completing your interviews. The practice of working through Media Relations is long established at IC for all independent media external to the college, and it works well.  In applying this policy also to media affiliated with IC (in the varying extent each of you are), we are simply applying a common professional standard and procedure on media access generally." 

Problem No.2: We are taught in all of our journalism classes that news is 24/7. Even in this Independent Media class, we are always talking about timeliness and the importence of putting news and spreading ideas on the internet-- the great part of the web being the instantanious aspect of it. But according to the policy, there must be at least 24 hours notice for any type of commentary. Doesn't this then inhibit our abilities to be professional journalists and thrive in an age of instant news?

To me, I see this policy as a setback for student journalists initiated by our school-- a school that is supposed to be extremely supportive of media and the fourth estate it represents. To me it seems that Ithaca College wants us to be critical reporters, just not critical of the college itself or its policies.