Haircut - 10/15/12

Buzzsaw Magazine’s

HAIRCUT October 15, 2012

Students Protest NEW Media Policy

By Emily Miles

M

ore than 50 students gathered in Peggy Ryan Williams on Friday morning in protest of President Tom Rochon’s new media policy. The group walked to the Free Speech Rock before relocating to the third floor of Campus Center.

Right before noon, they moved to the hallway outside of Taughannock Falls Meeting Room in hopes of confronting members of the Board of Trustees as they left the room.

Students stood against the wall holding signs and chanting, “don’t oppress the student press” and “Board of Trustees, keep the press free.”

The protest was in reaction to a new media policy issued on Oct. 1 that requires student media outlets seeking interviews with college administrators about school policy to submit all interview requests through the Ithaca College Office of Media Relations. The policy encompasses 84 administrators, including school deans, student services faculty, financial and admissions personnel and President Rochon.

President Rochon informed the staff of Buzzsaw magazine – as well as the staffs at The Itha-

can, WICB and ICTV – about the terms of the new policy last week, stressing that it was not designed as a roadblock to students’ access to the college administration.

In response, students and faculty issued letters to the editor and requests for repeals to campus media outlets and online. But some students, like senior Dylan Lowry, felt that the Board of Trustees or President Rochon would not receive published material.

Lowry, who held a sign reading “Fight for Your Right to Publish,” said he attended the protest in solidarity with the journalism program.

“This [protest] was an attempt to uphold Ithaca’s integrity … because I think the new policy does compromise the integrity of student press,” Lowry said.

Senior Brennin Cummings worked with several other Park School of Communications students to plan and market the event using Face-

Photo by Emily Miles

book and Twitter. Cummings said she thought the protest conveyed a strong message from the student body.

“We made sure to keep our protest peaceful, calm and rule abiding because we wanted our complaints to be taken seriously,” Cummings said.

After each member of the Board of Trustees left the room, Cummings and other organizers passed out fliers stating the goals of the protest.

Once all members had exited the room, the event ended and students returned to class.

“I think it was a necessary step to show the people that have the power to revoke the policy how much we care about it and how much we think it’s bullshit,” Lowry said. ___________________________________ Emily Miles is a senior journalism major. Email her at emiles1@ithaca.edu.

HAIRCUT LETTER FROM THE EDITORS

A Buzzsaw magazine publication.

Hair Cutter Emily Miles Hair Dresser Carly Sitzer Hair Stylist Danielle West Kacey Deamer Hair Sweepers

Marianna Garces Rachael Lewis-Krisky David Lurvey Gena Mangiaratti Meagan McGinnes Kayla Reopelle Anika Steppe Francesca Toscano Jenni Zellner

Views expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily those of the editorial staff or of Ithaca College. Feedback and contributions should be sent to buzzsawmag@gmail.com.

Special thanks to Campus Progress for funding this issue.

Visit us at:

BUZZSAWMAG.ORG

Last week, Ithaca College President Tom Rochon issued a new media policy that requires that student media outlets seeking interviews with college administrators must submit all interview requests through the Ithaca College Office of Media Relations. The policy encompasses 84 administrators, including school deans, student services faculty, financial and admissions personnel, and – of course – President Rochon.

President Rochon informed the staff of Buzzsaw magazine – as well as the staffs at The Ithacan, WICB, and ICTV – about the terms of the new policy last week, stressing that it was not designed as a roadblock to students’ access to the college administration.

However, the Buzzsaw editorial board, Buzzsaw staffers, and Buzzsaw alumni firmly reject the notion that the new media policy “will not be a hindrance to [our] pursuit of information.” In fact, the policy seems to be specifically designed to hinder student journalists from accessing administrators in a timely manner and relaying information about the college to the student body.

As current students and alumni committed to

truth, transparency, and critical examination of our surroundings, this new policy flies in the face of everything we are taught to practice as journalists.We are taught to pursue stories of interest to our college, city, and alumni communities. We are taught to respectfully and thoroughly investigate stories by speaking with a wide and diverse array of sources.And we are taught to criticize unnecessary bureaucratic barriers and attempts at censorship when we see them.

That’s why we are formally declaring our support for the repeal of the new media policy, joining a chorus of voices who have spoken out against the policy – including the Student Government Association, The Ithacan, over 60 Ithaca College staff and faculty members, and hundreds of Ithaca College students and alumni.

College policies should exist to strengthen – not limit – the academic learning environment.We ask the administration to recognize the dangers of this policy, rescind it, and push our college toward the open, transparent community that we know it can and should be.

- The Buzzsaw Magazine Editorial Board

Opinion: Karen Muller

I

’ve heard an interesting range of reactions to IC’s new media policy, but more interesting still have been the community’s reactions to the protest itself. Over the past week, as I discussed the topic with classmates and friends, I occasionally heard the repeal movement and protest referred to as “uninformed” and “overreacting”.

Is the repeal effort an overreaction to the new policy? Not from where I stand.

A broad range of actions has been taken by students, some more serious than others, but the intention at the heart of the movement is to start a dialogue with those who put the policy in place. Aside from President Rochon’s response in The Ithacan last Wednesday, the administration has remained fairly silent on the issue. The conversation has been one-sided in a way that seems unhealthy for the dynamics of the college community.

But “uninformed?” As a student journalist who sympathizes with the movement’s goal to repeal the policy, that reaction made me cringe.

As with any large movement, there remains a range of attitudes within the group, but lately, I’ve found the expressions of some of those attitudes to be concerning and detrimental—particularly those regarding use of emotional language and the actual representation of the policy’s contents.

There is a place for passion in protest, but expressions of anger and emotional language do not constitute an argument. With extreme opinions flying around, it seems that the details of the

policy itself have become buried beneath the debris of argument and emotion. Our power lies in calm discourse and logical analysis of both what the policy does mean and what it might mean.We aren’t fighting the college or even the administration; we’re fighting a policy.

Furthermore, since the best tool that we have is logic, any members of the community who decide to comment on the policy should, of course, have a full understanding of the issue. I appreciate that our student media have provided an ardent discussion, in school-affiliated publications and otherwise. However, from what I’ve seen, some aspects of this coverage haven’t been entirely accurate. In particular, the claims I’ve heard that the new media policy actually violates our First Amendment rights.

Our voices are not being directly censored by this policy. While the First Amendment protects our rights as student reporters to speak and publish about the goings-on on our campus, including administrative decisions, it does not mean that the administration or any other potential sources technically owe us any information or interviews. Just as we have the right to investigate, they have the right to choose whether or not they want to serve as sources.

Of course, as a journalist and a student who cares about the community, I strongly believe that it would be wrong for the administration to avoid responding to student media, or to narrowly filter its responses. The example of a silent administration is extreme, but I’m concerned by

the reality of Media Relations choosing our sources. It’s imperative that student media remain entirely separate from the college’s public relations.

While the kind of administrative transparency that we’d like to count on isn’t protected under the First Amendment, I think it’s fair for us to expect it from an ethical administrative assembly.

This distinction between Amendment-based and ethically-based wrongs makes a difference.

It’s important to protest not just that the policy is wrong, but also to explain why it’s wrong.

Though most students seem to have the right idea, if an individual speaks against the policy but misrepresents the facts, it undermines the credibility of the whole movement. Overall, I’ve been impressed by the number of students who have demonstrated their support for the repeal of the policy, but it’s important that we remember that credibility is everything, and when involved in any movement—or any sort of professional pursuit at all, really—it’s something we really need to protect. ________________________________ Karen Muller is a junior IMC major. Email her at kmuller1@ithaca.edu.

Breakdown of the New IC Media Policy President Tom Rochon

Dave Maley

Associate Director of Media Relations * The policy requires Dave Maley to serve as media relations liasion between student media and administratos

Opinion: Robert Hummel M

y time at Ithaca College has been brief. As a freshman, scared of my own shadow, I mostly try to keep my obligations in check, my concerns to myself. Frankly, it takes a lot of effort to assimilate into the regular rhythms of the college campus. And though I try to become involved in a number of ways, especially as a staff member of Buzzsaw Magazine, I normally cannot be bothered to give a damn about things that do not directly relate to my immediate concerns.

I am not a journalism major. I have not memorized the First Amendment word-for-word.

I’m a rookie writer on campus, my only training coming from my humble high school newspaper.

The point is: when it comes to the tangle of jargons and standards of college journalism, I do not know much of anything.

However, I do know when my rights, and the rights of my fellow student journalists are being violated. And that is something I do give a damn about.

The administration’s new media policy is a sinister, suspicious move by the college, and a surprising one given the towering reputation of IC’s journalism department. Moreover, it is disrespectful to the reporters attempting to communicate college activity to students in an effective manner.

The way I perceive it, the policy is an indirect snub, essentially telling student journalists that administrators have better things to do than talk to the press. By extension, it shows disdain for the student body in general, who have no other way of receiving information about administrative activity beyond puffy press releases after the fact.

To say that taking the time to properly explain important topics to the press distracts from an

administrator’s “actual job,” as President Tom Rochon claims, makes me question what these individuals think their actual jobs are, if not making decisions on behalf of the student body. Indeed, even if we are just four-year guests in their eyes, we are also major contributors to the school financially. Do we not have the right to transparency, the right to know what the administration is doing for us?

Restricting journalists from obtaining direct information from these powerful individuals in a timely and effective manner – indeed, obtaining information from them at all – is beyond unfair.

Why would the school jeopardize their relationship with one of their most prestigious programs? Is there something that they do not want us to know? Whether they like it or not, these are the kinds of thoughts that have surfaced as a result, and it could have a corrosive effect on the trust between the school and the people within it. If we cannot see clearly, we cannot see at all.

At best, the policy is a means for administrators to clear a few minutes of their daily schedule. At worst, it is a forceful violation of the bond between student and educator. Even I, a mere freshman, know that. And I will not sit still for it. __________________________________ Robert Hummel is a freshman cinema and photography major. Email him at rhummel1@ithaca.edu.

President Provost Vice Presidents Associate Vice Presidents Directors Deans Associate Deans Assistant Deans

Guest Commentary Dear editor, We write to express concern about the new media policy recently instituted at Ithaca College.

While President Rochon claims that this is merely a way to “facilitate” interviews, it should be recognized for what it really is—an unnecessary and bureaucratic attempt to control access to information and decision-makers at the college.

This new policy creates a layer of PR between journalists and their sources so that the college can make sure every story is spun to its liking.

In practice, this policy will mean that student journalists working on tight deadlines will end up with many more instances of “could not be reached for comment” in their stories. It will also mean that the administration, not the student reporters and editors, get to decide who is the most “appropriate” person to comment for a story. That is a real blow to transparency and openness at a college that supposedly prides itself on a world-class communication program.

We expect this kind of controlling policy from secretive government and business entities, not from an institution that claims to cherish academic and press freedoms.

As graduates of Ithaca College and former editors of Buzzsaw, we ask that the school rescind this policy and restore open communication between student media and administrators.

Sincerely, Kiley Edgley, ‘06 Jeremy Levine, ‘06 Emily McNeill, ‘08 Kate Sheppard, ’06

Emily Gallagher, ‘06 Jessica McCoy, ‘06 David Cooper Moore, ‘06

Opinion: Carly Sitzer

2

,027. That’s how many of us made up the class of 2013 my freshman year.

2,027 minds relaxing as the deposit check was sent in; 2,027 awkward faces smiling for ID picture at orientation; 2,027 lottery numbers fighting HomerConnect for freshmen housing; 2,027 hungry stomachs waiting impatiently for Sunday brunch at the Terraces; 2,027 voices complaining when the weather turned cold in early October.

2,027 reasons why Ithaca College was the right school—but for me, there was always only one reason I became a member of the overwhelming class of 2013: The Department of Journalism.

I didn’t come to Ithaca College because I wanted to be a student. I came to Ithaca College because I wanted to be a journalist.

The curriculum promises active education. We aren’t just told what makes a good story—we write good stories. The line between the classroom and the newsroom blurs a little more everyday as we apply those technical skills—in writing, interviewing, editing, designing and more.

And once we’re armed with these abilities, we go deeper by learning the rights and responsibilities; the problems facing journalists historically and currently, ethically and legally. As journalists, we look for every side of the story. In exchange— with classes like Ethics, History, Government and Media, Independent Media and more—we are given the entire story.

We are taught how to be journalists and then what it means to be a journalist. Rather than being questioned, we are encouraged to question the world around us. For me, the goal was never about my grade.The assessment of my education, I always believed, was its “real world” value. Despite the exams, required blog entries, deadlines, articles and an impossibly long research paper, I never felt like I was being tested.

Until now.

By instituting this new media policy, President Tom Rochon has successfully gone against every-

thing I have been taught as a journalist.

With the new system that filters not only the sources, but also their messages, it completely undermines our ability as journalists to determine who is the most appropriate source to contact, a skill we learn heavily in Journalism Research.

This controlled and limited dialogue and prohibition of multiple perspectives diminishes our ability to act honestly and independently, a virtue held high in Journalism Ethics, while impeding the goal of upholding the value of objectivity.

This is the kind of bureaucratic self-interest that Independent Media warns us about: when self-interested groups not only get involved in the content, but also in the nature of the messages being disseminated.

The new policy sounds eerily similar to the efforts of Edward Bernays, who—according to Journalism History—rocked the journalism world with his innovative notions of public relations and propaganda.

Journalism History also exposed us to people like Walter Lippmann, who believed that journalists were to serve as the middlemen between policymakers and the public. He explored how, when too much access to the public is given to a single source of authority, democracy is threatened. This allows propaganda to thrive.

Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model suggests that one of the most influential ways institutions (in this case, the college) can promote self interests, is by controlling media sources as a way to filter their own agenda to the public.

By this definition, the goal of President Rochon’s new policy is perpetuating propaganda dressed as a poorly disguised effort to focus on his “actual job.”

Unfortunately for the President, I have an “actual job” as well.

In my education, I have come to believe that it is the responsibility of the journalist to serve the

I guess that’s why they call it a media circus...”

public by acting as a watchdog to governments, administrations and other authorities that may abuse power.

I uphold the Society of Professional Journalist’s goal to “Seek the truth and report it,” and to do so while acting accountably and independently.

Lippmann warned future journalists to learn to recognize the difference between “news” and “facts.” It may be the “news” that will orchestrate student journalists through Dave Maley, but that won’t stop anyone from seeking the truth and reporting.

I have been lucky in my three years on campus that I’ve been encouraged to learn in a way that is engaging and think in a way that is critical.

At the core of information gathering is six seemingly easy questions: Who? What? When?

Where? Why? and How? When it came to defining my own identity as a journalist, I knew the who was taken care of, and the how and what would be covered along the way. However, it wasn’t until my involvement with the student media that are currently being threatened that I began to formulate an answer to the why.

Why am I a journalist? Simply put, because of issues like this. Because as a journalist, I have a voice and I’m going to use it. I’m part of a world that’s constantly evolving and always learning. I’m in an environment where I’m not just welcome to, but encouraged to question authority and the world around me.

I had accepted that I had an impossibly long deadline for when and where this dream of becoming a “real” journalist would become a reality—although, ideally, it would occur in Manhattan, immediately after graduation.

But if this policy raised my awareness to anything, it’s that it’s happening here and now.

We’re journalists—not journalism students, or even student journalists. It doesn’t take a diploma, a byline or inclusion on an exclusive list to identify who we are or what we do. We’re defined by an underlying drive and common goal to spread the truth to create engaging conversation and informed citizens—despite efforts to stop that.

I chose Ithaca because I needed an environment that fostered that kind of passion. I chose to be one little fish in a big pond of 2,027.

But I didn’t choose journalism—it chose me.

Because whether there are 2,027 voices, 2 million voices or one overpowering voice, there are some voices that can’t be silenced. ____________________________________ Carly Sitzer is a senior journalism major. Email her at csitzer1@ithaca.edu