What a bunch of whiners

So I was on Romenesko and read this story about some of the editors of the school newspaper at the University of Akron that had to go before a school judicial panel concerning a byline dispute. Oh my, all I really have to say is, as the post headline says, what a bunch of whiners. And I find some fault in their arguments.

Well, the main jist is that the student editors removed a writer's byline and replaced it with "staff report" for a story on one of the university's theater productions. The writer is miffed because they removed her byline and, when she found out about their plans to do such, because the editors didn't give her the option to not publish the story.

The student editors' defense is that they had the right to do whatever they wanted with the article and that the judicial panel has no right to peer into their practices because, besides the university providing them space in which to operate and paying for their advisor, that they are independent.

As a former student editor, I find fault with both sides of this argument. According to the student newspaper's website, they are an "independent student newspaper"—they receive no student fees, are not affiliated with any department, and their ad revenues pay for staff wages, equipment, and printing costs. But, the university still provides them with their office space (and probably foots the electricity bill) and pays their adviser's salary. That doesn't sound completely independent to me¹. While the fact that they do not receive student fees doesn't leave them open to the possibility of prior restraint that the majority of other university student (and all public high school) newspapers face², they are still susceptible to the university's whims, because they could just decide to kick them out and stop funding their advisor.

But I'll agree with the editors that they shouldn't have had to go before the judiciary panel, especially with the allegations being on plagiarism, cheating, and academic dishonesty, none of which would really apply for this situation. But, like I said, they are still susceptible to the university because they DO rely on them for two very crucial things. It would be in their best interests to not completely blow them off; it's bad PR, and nothing's worse than pissing off your landlord.

But I do find fault with the editors, mostly their arts & life editor, who should've known enough on the reporter's background to ask why she wanted the assignment. In all likelihood, the piece was either pitched or assigned. Either way, the reporter's ethics are in question. If the editor blindly assigned the story, then it's the reporter's fault for not disclosing that she was involved in the production. If the story was pitched, then both are at fault: the reporter for not revealing that she was involved in the production and the editor for blindly saying OK without getting more information about it. Also, they could've just held the story until the matter was resolved; it was just a preview, which, given the pertinent information, could've been turned into a brief and be given proper coverage with a review when it comes out.

I also find fault in the reporter's allegation of plagiarism for the editors replacing her byline with "staff report" because she said "no one at the staff wrote it." That's seemingly incorrect because she was going to get paid for the piece, which would make her a staff member or an independent correspondent. If it was the former, well, in that case someone on staff did write the report and the "staff report" byline was correct. If the latter is correct, then the editors should've given it a "special to the" byline.

But I stand by what I've said already. Stop your whining and get over it. It's all semantics and no one is right. Now go home and cry into your pillows.

¹The only example I really know of is the student newspaper at the University of Texas-San Antonio, which is completely independent of the university and is located off campus, while their advisor just happens to be a professor at UTSA.
²A large majority of student newspapers for public (and private) universities get part of some sort of fee (usually a student services fee) to help pay for something at the paper; hence why it's a student newspaper because the student's are paying for it. This leaves it open to prior restraint by university officials because the president of the university acts as the publisher, although at the college level, most leave them to their own volition and trust that the faculty advisor will do their job. It's the same thing as how high school newspapers are subject to prior restraint from their principal. It's all law, and a law that SCOTUS is weary of touching because it could, more than likely, tip favor toward the administration and give less rights to student journalists. It's sad, but true.