As a member of the J-School's Class of 2007 I am appalled at the media response to this pretty minute situation. We learned (yes, in Ethics) about the rumor mill that influenced the MSM in the wake of Katrina and somehow, we have elevated a small situation which involved a handful of students into a schoolwide fiasco. It reminds me of when I used to play the "telephone" game as a kid. It starts out with "oh, one or two people cheated" to "alert the media, this is the j-school cheating scandal." It's absolutely ridiculous on all fronts. But, as one professor pointed out, you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. So, I guess we just deal with it. Also, regardless of whether the school finds out who/how many students were/are involved, it is apparent that most students have not grasped the overarching lesson to be learned--in the session today, students focused on finding out who told the administration, not who did the cheating. If we are ethical, as the vehement discussion that was had this afternoon suggests, why don't we feel the need to focus on those who actually had the unfair advantage?
As for you, Columbia Journalism School is an open forum for discussion and this is adamantly encouraged by faculty and administration. At NO time and I repeat NO time were we told not to talk to reporters. We were told, however, to think about how our words will impact how others view the school. So, get your reporting correct. If J-Schoolers were not talking, you can't assume that it's because they were told not to talk to the media. Instead, you say no J-Schoolers were willing to comment on the situation. In fact, it might not be too late for you to apply to the J-School for next year's class? Just a thought...
As a member of the J-School's Class of 2007 I am appalled at the media response to this pretty minute situation. We learned (yes, in Ethics) about the rumor mill that influenced the MSM in the wake of Katrina and somehow, we have elevated a small situation which involved a handful of students into a schoolwide fiasco. It reminds me of when I used to play the "telephone" game as a kid. It starts out with "oh, one or two people cheated" to "alert the media, this is the j-school cheating scandal." It's absolutely ridiculous on all fronts. But, as one professor pointed out, you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. So, I guess we just deal with it. Also, regardless of whether the school finds out who/how many students were/are involved, it is apparent that most students have not grasped the overarching lesson to be learned--in the session today, students focused on finding out who told the administration, not who did the cheating. If we are ethical, as the vehement discussion that was had this afternoon suggests, why don't we feel the need to focus on those who actually had the unfair advantage?
As for you, Columbia Journalism School is an open forum for discussion and this is adamantly encouraged by faculty and administration. At NO time and I repeat NO time were we told not to talk to reporters. We were told, however, to think about how our words will impact how others view the school. So, get your reporting correct. If J-Schoolers were not talking, you can't assume that it's because they were told not to talk to the media. Instead, you say no J-Schoolers were willing to comment on the situation. In fact, it might not be too late for you to apply to the J-School for next year's class? Just a thought...