When I first got involved in The Stute, our policies regarded Letters to the Editor, Conflicts of Interest, Corrections, Opinion columns, and maybe one more topic that I can’t remember. But for the most part, that was it; it was a single Google Doc with a few headings and some descriptions.
Over the past two years, our policies have expanded and grown tremendously. Past Editor in Chief Matthew Cunningham started the discussion by adding policies on Anonymity, Op-Eds, Co-writing, and Copy Editing, explaining that our policies should be detailed. In some way, they’re what “protect” us, or at the very least, give us something to refer to when faced with a situation or decision we don’t know how to handle. Not sure what the protocol on two writers working on an article together is? Consult our policy on co-writing. Not sure what the protocol on how we handle mistakes we make is? Consult our policy on corrections.
The thing about our policies though is that they’re constantly growing. They’re always going to be changed, modified, and/or added to as we learn, and that’s a good thing. It indicates that our organization is growing and improving. This editorial is meant to create transparency surrounding three changes to our policies that were approved by the Executive Board on Sunday, February 7, 2021. Here’s what you need to know:
A new policy: “Accuracy checking”
What it says:
“Requests from sources for writers to change quotes said on the record will not be granted. In the event of clarifying context or fixing something inaccurate in an original quote, situations will be discussed by editors and requests to change may be granted.
Furthermore, writers should refrain from sending a finished story back to sources before it’s published. This practice relinquishes press freedoms and will only be granted on a case by case basis with a discussion among editors. However, writers are permitted to send specific, individual quotes being used in a story back to sources upon request from the source.”
What it means:
This policy protects us if sources request to edit a finished piece we quote them in, change their quotes to make them “sound better,” asks to read through a finished article before it’s published (which happens a lot), or other instances that relinquish our press freedoms. This isn’t meant to say that we’ll be stubborn or we won’t work with a source if a quote is taken out of context — that’s completely different and will be addressed. This new policy is simply to help writers communicate with sources, and this type of policy is very common among professional news organizations and newspapers.
A change to our policy on “Anonymity”
What it says:
“The Stute does not allow quotes to be left anonymous unless obtaining the news could not have been done any other way. Granting anonymity to sources is not done casually or automatically. However, The Stute recognizes that in some circumstances granting anonymity is the only option. Those situations are discussed on a case by case basis.
In the case of unsigned Op-Eds or Letters to the Editor, the identity of the writer must be made known to the Editor-in-Chief. In the case of anonymous sources in all other content, the identity of the writer must be made known to at least two (2) editors to allow for a discussion.”
What it was before:
“The Stute does not allow quotes to be left anonymous unless obtaining the news could not have been done any other way. In the case of unsigned Op-Eds or Letters to the Editor, the identity of the writer must be made known to the Editor-in-Chief.”
What the change means:
The motivation to update our policy on anonymity came from the fact that it wasn’t fleshed out enough. It was a bit arbitrary and could be confusing to new writers. Sources who wish to be anonymous will never be immediately rejected; there will be a discussion in order to come to a conclusion. However, we try to avoid using anonymous sources as much as possible, simply because anonymity can make it difficult for readers to trust the information we present or the events a source is detailing.
A change to our “Take down / “unpublish” policy”
What it says:
“Due to the nature of content published online, the occasional request to take down pieces from our website will arise. The Stute does not grant these requests often and it is considered a last resort; any situation in which take down requests arise will be discussed by The Stute Executive Board. In the event of taking down a piece, we will contact the writer before the decision is made and discuss the situation with them, but The Stute reserves the right to take down a piece before discussing it with the writer, if the situation permits.”
What it was: (Previously the “Censorship / take down policy”)
“The Stute Executive Board reserves the right to censor a piece at any time and will contact the writer and discuss the situation with them directly. However, The Stute reserves the right to censor a piece before discussing it with the writer, if the situation permits. The Stute aims to censor pieces as little as possible and it is considered a last resort.”
What the change means:
Similar to our previous policy on anonymity, this policy was a bit arbitrary and could be confusing. In some situations, we have experienced requests to take down or “unpublish” pieces from our website. Our intention with this policy is to say that we try to avoid this as much as possible; if a piece is published in print, it can’t be removed. Thus we should exercise our ability to take down content online as little as possible. This is a common principle among professional newspapers, and any request to take down a piece will be discussed.
All our policies can be read here.
Be First to Comment