This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
May/June 2003

A gap too far: Bridging adversarial relations with media

by James Russell

James Russell is IASB director of publications.

If it were as simple as waving a white flag, signing a truce, compensating for damages and accounting for the wounded, missing or dead, the resolution to the fierce conflicts that often rage between the media and the boards of education they cover would be fairly clear-cut.

But the problem with most adversarial media-school relations is that they never declare a war. Instead, both sides engage in skirmishes along the borders, occasionally crossing demilitarized zones and retreating for cover after firing isolated missiles. Or they conduct midnight raids, taking a hostage or two for insurance, to "send a message" to the other side.

If this analogy fails to hit the target in your community, I bet you know of a neighboring district where this scenario plays out week after week. And if military jargon is not the appropriate choice for these types of ongoing conflicts, then what metaphor is?

Having spent 26 years in Ohio and Illinois "battlefields," leading armies of journalists into hand-to-hand combat with unsuspecting or suspicious education leaders, I refuse to camouflage my words when I speak of former colleagues. I accept full responsibility for my own role in some of the "atrocities" that the media commit in pursuit of the "public's right to know." Likewise, however, I can testify that many board members and superintendents are equally capable of "war crimes" as long as they believe the press corps is the enemy.

What is the result of these senseless conflicts? A confused public, a battered and defensive school board, editors and superintendents with wounded egos and diminished credibility. And the ultimate casualty? The democratic process that supports both a free press and publicly elected officials.

But where does the problem start, why does it continue and what can be done?

Media marching orders

Education reporters, many who are rookie soldiers fresh out of journalism boot camps, generally obey the marching orders of their field generals, otherwise known as city or metro editors. The beat reporters are given basic training, instructions on a need-to-know basis, and pointed toward the nearest school building or boardroom.

Armed with nothing more than a one-page agenda, a handful of story clips and maybe the description of a few key players, they march unannounced into school board meetings. After a two- or three-hour blitz of information, incoherent discussions, unanimous votes or a lengthy executive session, they emerge with scribbled notes, illegible phone numbers and maybe a few crumpled handouts.

The reporter then retreats to the editorial bunker, not having yet eaten the rations picked up at the drive-through (if it was still open), and sits down at a computer (which may or may not be working), knowing the deadline for this story is less than an hour away.

The city editor is not there, but eagerly awaits the results. He or she will have no idea what was done or said at the meeting. But like a field general relying on messengers and cables from the war front, the city editor will immediately assess the information, cull the essential facts from the jargon, delete any references to programs or people which could be considered "fluff," and crunch the entire story into four or five paragraphs.

The "lede," or beginning of the story, will focus on the most controversial vote, the most argumentative banter or the most damaging statistic. And the headline, taken from the city editor's preconceived notion of what defines news for that school district, that community and those readers, will be the shrapnel that rips the superintendent at tomorrow's Rotary Club meeting.

Retaliatory strikes will occur shortly thereafter.

Orders from the front lines

Calls will be made - to the reporter, who will beg for mercy; to the publisher, who sits across from the superintendent at Rotary; and to board members, who will demand to know why the superintendent doesn't take charge of this matter.

Orders will immediately follow - do not cooperate with that reporter, if he or she is even informed of the next meeting; refuse to allow the paper's Newspaper-in-Education project to be distributed in school; and take the next available opportunity to publicly denounce the newspaper and anyone who works there.

This confrontation, replayed dozens of times over in communities large and small, is typical of hit-and-run journalism. The editors at these weeklies or dailies, many of which operate with little or no competition, perceive the school board and the superintendent as arrogant, with little or no regard for the public interest. They believe that the lack of deliberation before a vote is treasonous, that vital information has not been exposed or shared, and that the executive session is rife with violations of the Open Meetings Act.

Similarly, school leaders in such communities can view the press with equal contempt. Faced with few if any other media outlets, these boards and superintendents reluctantly cooperate with one rookie reporter after another. They carefully craft or limit their comments to a single spokesperson, they admonish their colleagues if they dare to argue, or may seek refuge in that same executive session.

Certainly not all newspapers practice hit-and-run journalism, nor do all education leaders respond this way. I'm sad to report, however, that this confrontation is not an isolated example.

In fact, the stakes are often much higher in larger communities, where bigger and better equipped media legally and forcefully challenge school leaders on a variety of complex education issues. There is no end to the number of potential stories, editorials, and even in-depth series that can be developed on public policy issues related to student achievement, use of resources, financial records, student discipline, staffing decisions, promotions and firings, etc.

But whether these stories are covered in a spirit of cooperation or confrontation depends as much on the intentions and abilities of the elected school leaders and administrators as it does on the media and their contingent of news-gatherers and editors.

Even when operating in a period of relative calm, a school board can be ambushed if just one reporter seizes an opportunity to score the big story, covets the byline that will get him or her the next job interview, or guns for the individual who snubbed them in their last story. Such distractions draw even more attention, which slows the momentum, raises public doubt and casts long shadows on efforts to maintain normal public relations.

Sharing responsibility

Reporters or editors who maintain a regular vigil over a single school district can do much to limit such distractions, or at least to put them in their proper perspective. The same responsibility, in my opinion, also falls on the experienced superintendent or board president who has seen his or her share of young, overly ambitious, if not self-righteous reporters.

Heated exchanges over information, or the lack of it, can be handled deftly when taken out of the "battlefield" and into a neutral territory. The offer of more information, explanation or even a glimpse into future action can disarm a mistrusting or misguided journalist. Discussions with an editorial board or publisher can also reveal additional insight that even the most jaded newspaperman or woman would find tempting.

Diplomacy, however, should not be expected to prevail over all stalemates. It is best suited to prevent rather than to settle disputes after they have evolved into pitched battles.

The ultimate arbiter in the ongoing relationship between any newspaper and any school board is the reader. This person, who at the same time may also be the taxpayer, the voter, the school employee or even the next school board member, will make the final decision to support the schools or the media; one, both or neither.

When battle lines are drawn and both sides are firing, my hunch is both sides will lose.