I don't think we are doing a very good job of applying it, but I am glad that we are talking about it.
When two of my strongest thinkers and writers provided milquetoast editorials last week, I urged them to do better. One of the editorials was about sometimes leaving the pressure behind and playing basketball or watching TV. The other was about settling or not chasing your dreams because they probably aren't achievable.
Could we be any more depressing? These are bright, motivated, smart kids, but these were not exactly stories that would have any real impact on our school community or tell them anything they hadn't thought about. I told them as such. I even used the term milquetoast and suffered the derision for the rest of the week.
What the discussion immediately turned to, though, was that the stories were not socially responsible. And it was the students who mentioned the term. They weren't applying the theory, but when I criticized their work, they did recognize, albeit tongue-in-cheek, their lack of social responsibility in their editorials.
We talked through what they could do differently, and they came in with revisions the next day, but I am still disappointed with the topics they chose. They have done better in the past, and they will do better next time because they will consider our discussion of how they fell short in being socially responsible. Our discussion, and my critiques, will be in the back of their minds when they next brainstorm, and they will do better.
My other disappointment is in the sports section. We have been working on a story regarding how money is spent on athletic teams, and what it costs to run each sport for the last two months. We have a reporter who has been meeting with the A.D. weekly and poring over the books, and it is an interesting story that will provide fresh information for our community. The sports editors chose to preempt it for another month in favor of 1200 word feature story about a teacher at our school who is a swimming coach for the paralympics. It is a great story, but we also ran a story on him last year, when he was actually coaching in china for the paralymipics. It is a good story, but the editors chose to run that one instead of the A.D. story. I think it was the wrong choice, but having student leaders means that sometimes they will make decisions you disagree with.
One good thing that may come from the editorial choice, though, is that we need to get more people in the athletic funding story. The reporter will be able to talk to coaches, player and parents, and he hasn't done that yet. This could end up being a much bigger story worthy of a full-page.
We are going to print on Monday. I will post a link to our website, and a pdf of our issue when it is live.
I can relate to your frustration with your editors, but it's good and helpful advice (even if they don't see it just yet). My HS adviser used to get so annoyed with me for "soapboxing" all the time--a criticism I resented him for, but came to see as helpful when my critical thinking matured a bit. Honestly, I still have a lot of trouble controlling that one! I am proud of you for letting your sports ed run the story that may not be as relevant (or may be too stale) but buys some time for an even better expose later--but more importantly, your staff feels empowered to make decisions and that's commendable.
ReplyDeleteIt seems you have somewhat mastered the art of expressing your viewpoint and expertise but not exerting control. That has to be a fine line. Keep up the good fight.
ReplyDelete