We start off our writing with research week, using Google Scholar we’re able to search refined studies and information about anything we’re seeking for our stories. Through a lot of refining and searching we then find what we consider to be a reputable source - reputable sources can be defined as anything with concrete provable data. This in turn solidifies or modifies our angle and we are able to tackle sources.
We start off our writing with research week, using Google Scholar we’re able to search refined studies and information about anything we’re seeking for our stories. Through a lot of refining and searching we then find what we consider to be a reputable source - reputable sources can be defined as anything with concrete provable data. This in turn solidifies or modifies our angle and we are able to tackle sources.
We start off our writing with research week, using Google Scholar we’re able to search refined studies and information about anything we’re seeking for our stories. Through a lot of refining and searching we then find what we consider to be a reputable source - reputable sources can be defined as anything with concrete provable data. This in turn solidifies or modifies our angle and we are able to tackle sources.
10 LAW & ETHICS
Our school is very polarized, whether it be on political issues or just general opinions of our student body. There have been instagram posts with the comments, “I’m going to skin whoever made this,” or “Trap team is gonna have some target practice I guess,” amongst the others, about our general publication like, “To know that you are extremely ignorant and have nothing better to do than be a stupid social justice warrior and defend stupid b******* in a s***** school newspaper that sugar coats actual world problems and writes b******* stories,” we’ve experienced it all.
This is why, in our 2018 school-year we introduced the use of anonymous sources into our papers. As we began to push the threshold of student journalism, we realized that we needed to protect our sources from threats, or legal battles that may be brought upon them through our desire to create honest storytelling.
In my recent story, published in our February 2019 issue, I wrote a disclaimer in order to set the scene for readers, as well as establish that names had been changed in order to protect the identity of our sources. I’m glad I did. To read, “Trap team is gonna have some target practice I guess,” directed at the students who shared their stories in our publication is heartbreaking. Aside from getting our own school’s administration involved, we realized why we needed to weigh the student perceptions of our stories before publishing. There were also the threats made against me, the writer. There is no perfect way to get around this dilemma, as a publication should proudly share the name of the writer, but ethically, I felt good about the story and knew that administration would be able to handle it better than I would, so that is when we decided to take the step to pass it on in order to keep our staff, sources, and readers safe.
​
To gain further context, refer to The Furries of LSE.
In another article I wrote, The Nicotine Resurgence, I interviewed a lot of underage vapers. However, I knew that as a journalist, I was just trying to investigate the trend, and recount the story. Because of that, I was on my own for the writing, and interviewing, because legally, if my adviser or anyone were to know the names, it would have to be reported. I would have my interview passes pre-signed by my adviser and during the interview I would express to the source that this story is fully anonymous, so together we’d pick a fake name. Any questions I had about quotes and the legality of the sources, such as talk of marijuana, which got cut by my principal, were talked about in a sort of code.
One of my biggest dilemmas, which resulted in me crying in front of my adviser for the first time, was a feature piece on an LGBT student, Crystal Newstrom. Her name had been randomly selected for a Humans of LSE story, a feature piece. Newstrom was quoted regarding her parents and their inability to accept her as gay. My adviser, following the legal guidelines, as Newstrom was a minor, would’ve been required to call her parents regarding the quote. Ethically, I was not okay with this. As someone who knew how paralyzing unaccepting parents could be, I weighed the options, and decided to refrain from publishing the story. It is ethical journalism to not endanger the lives of any student, and the mental battle I knew Newstrom faced was something I didn’t want to push any further, as it may have endangered her. I consulted trusted friends, my fellow Editor-In-Chief, and came to this decision. It was made with strenuous weight on my shoulders, and it was life changing in the sense that I learned first-hand just how hard storytelling could be. I’m thankful that my adviser was extremely understanding of my position, and knew how much I cared about this student and story. I’m also thankful for Newstrom, who was extremely understanding and grateful that I pulled the story before her parents were contacted.