Friday, March 20, 2009 By Chronicle staff [ArticleImageHyperLink] Advertising Undermining the journalistic code (January 27, 2006) -- Meddling in the school’s computer network cost some students a serious sit-down with the administration; some were subsequently suspended and expelled, and just as quickly, people were itching to figure out identities. An incident had triggered full interest in the student body from the student body, and so students were eager to get the scoop. Rightfully so, they deserved to. The Clark Chronicle deserved to as well, so that information we received would channel to the rest of the student body through our monthly publication of the Clark Chronicle. To recap, in every issue, we try to represent the journalistic code: to seek truth and report it. It doesn’t matter how controversial and how stinging truth can be; as long as it is solid and truthful, we constantly advocate it. When the decision to write and print the story arrived, we took the journalistic code more seriously than ever. We realized that students’ identities and reputations were on the line, as well as ours. To publish a high-quality story, we needed to collect substantial evidence of events from the administration, seeing that the administration was in direct confrontation with the students. In turn, by providing information, developing the story would be easier and thus help advocate the code—that is, once again, to report the truth. It is understandable that such a controversial event as the one the students were involved in was a scare for the administration; revealing information is difficult, but that the administration failed to comment on the event was a slamming of doors, turning of bodies. Just as students rely on the staff and administration for support, so do we as student reporters. We hope that when a similar case is brought up in the future, the administration will be more open to provide information, not just for the benefit of the Chronicle but also for the rest of the student body. When the administration failed to comment and provide information, the writer for the story tried to find credible sources to back up the story. She did get the credible source of one side—the students themselves. The lack of information from the administration or even the school district was slowly eroding the code. We took responsibility for that. Originally, the writer had made an appointment to meet with a school district official but plans failed. The writer then decided to input statistics, but statistics, in this case, were not content-worthy; the story would be weak. Thus, the story never ran. The hacking incident was difficult for the school administration to comment on, but as evidenced by a recent incident, the administration was unwilling once again to comment on why Myspace is banned in GUSD. Ed Tech, on the other hand, was able to comment freely. That our very own administration, in comparison to a school official, chooses not to provide information in regards to the student body is unreasonable. We hope that when a similar case is brought up in the future, the administration will be more open to provide information, not just for the benefit of the Chronicle but also for the rest of the student body.

Back to the articles list