Law, Ethics and News Literacy

At the heart of my goals as a journalist lies spreading accessible and accurate truth. Throughout my time on The Standard, I have worked to foster a community of media literacy and curiosity while striving to approach all decisions with journalistic ethical standards at heart. A significant part of my leadership has been centered around mitigating ethical situations and making decisions to ensure our publication can remain credible and minimal harm is done to all those concerned.

News literacy initiatives

Assisting other publications

After the distribution of our first issue of Ampersand, students on the Sustainability Council reached out to my deputy editor-in-chief and me, asking for our help in creating their own publication. I met with these students and walked them through the initial steps of creating a new publication, ranging from identifying their purpose and audience to setting up systems for content pitching and editing. Since then, I've helped them set up their master pages and provided them with resources on ethical and accurate journalistic writing.

Assisting other groups within the school in setting up their own publication fosters the responsible information sharing integral to news literacy. I hope that through attempting to produce their own news content, my peers will gain a deeper understanding of how to navigate media. And ultimately, more publications in the school, such as this one, which was focused on sustainability within and outside our community, increases the sharing and exploration of information, engagement with the community, and productive discourse.

Global Festival

Further, I assisted in co-ordinating The Standard's participation in Global Festival, a K-12 community event centered around celebrating all cultures present at the school. We collaborated with parents in our school's Parent Community Association to execute a journalism-related activity for lower school families. Our volunteers helped the students use cameras, learn to approach different members of our community, ask questions and conduct short interviews. As a publication, we valued teaching young students the skills of reporting that will help them further understand what news is and how they can engage with it.

Editorials

Editorials are one of the most direct ways we, as a publication, use our voice. We publish one editorial per print issue and also publish it online to increase engagement with the topic or issue we are highlighting.

In order to use our voice fairly, our editorial process is deeply democratic with a foundation of dialogue, with any editor having the ability to pitch an idea, and all editors encouraged to build upon each other's thoughts. When I was a section editor, I engaged deeply in discussion, considering the impacts of our ideas on the community, our current coverage, our past editorials, our call to action, and our coverage. Now, as editor-in-chief, I continue these practices while also facilitating the discussion to ensure all editors get equal airtime and have their voices heard and valued. I also ensure to point out any ethical or big picture considerations any of the editors may have missed. Once all ideas, and their possible strengths, weaknesses and impacts, have been discussed to their entirety, we move on to a blind vote, before drafting the editorial and signing off on it with a majority.

In writing and editing an editorial, I keep our values of diversity, truth, ethical journalism and productive, healthy impact at the heart of my work. Sometimes this means checking facts to ensure we are not spreading misinformation; sometimes this means taking a step back and considering what the possible impacts of the piece will be. When utilizing our collective voice as a publication, I am constantly checking myself and my board to make sure our work is promoting civic engagement and responsibility for the entire community.

Combatting misinformation

While editing, I ensure statements in opinion pieces are supported by credible and unbiased sources and are not baseless. Often, writers will say statements as if they are obvious or facts without the necessary support from an authoritative source, which makes for a strong and credible opinion. As a newspaper, it is our responsibility to ensure we are not spreading misinformation or disinformation, and that statements and facts we publish and spread to our community are accurate and sufficiently backed.

Recently, in an article about an athlete body image, one of my reporters was consistently using anonymous sources to define medical terms such as steroids and performance-enhancing drugs. Through multiple rounds of edits, I reminded her that these students are not authoritative sources and are not credible to give definitions to these drugs, and had her find descriptions of these terms to include in the piece on trusted medical sources, keeping the student sources to talk about their own personal experiences, not spread information that could possibly be false as if it is fact.

Making sure we spread accurate information is a top priority for me as an editor-in-chief and journalist. The Standard must be a source of reliable, credible information, and it is each and every member of our staff's responsibility that we are checking the sources of the information we share as a trusted source of news.

Law and ethics

I had never expected how large a role law and ethics play in my job as an editor-in-chief. Every issue, a significant amount of my work with writers is centered around making sure we are following journalistic practices and minimizing harm to the best of our ability, especially since our staff very often selects to write pieces centered around identity, social issues or controversial/sensitive topics. As editor-in-chief, I flag possible ethical or legal complications, and then work with the section editor and writer to make sure these complications can be clarified and remedied, whether that requires an additional source, conferencing with a member of safeguarding or reaching out for a right to reply.

Takedown requests

With the rise in awareness over digital footprint and the increased use of social media and online profiles being used for job and visa selection, we have witnessed an increased number of takedown requests over the past year. In response to each of these requests, our editorial board follows our Takedown and Corrections Policy, linked on our website with the rest of our policies. As a section editor, I was always active in these discussions, considering how it would impact the individual but also how it would impact our publication to remove content, and how we can minimise harm to both groups. As editor-in-chief, I lead my team in discussions over these requests, prompting them to weigh the different sides of the issue and come to a solution that is productive for both parties.

Staff manual

At the start of the 2025-26 school year, I, alongside the rest of the managing team, reviewed our staff manual, which includes all of our publication-wide policies and guides. I made changes to a number of policies in response to recent external developments, such as the increasing use of AI in educational settings and a new phone ban policy that forced us to adapt our use of technology for journalism.

When it comes to our journalist ethics, these policies guide us and set the precedent for our entire team to remain accountable and aligned with our mission. They help us remain consistent from situation to situation, ensuring all ethical concerns and questions are handled with consistency and equality. In changing them, I was constantly considering their possible applications and how my changes may impact our staff and practices.

Photo consent and personal data

Around mid-autumn, our publication faced a new legal issue arising from a change to our school’s enrollment contract. Due to changes in U.K. child data protection laws, our school was considering updating its policies on publishing students' personal data, including their names and faces.

The school’s first change was regarding publishing photos of students. The school made it so students could no longer consent to having their photos published online, and thus sent out a form to all parents requesting consent for their child. Responses to this form were then compiled into our Photo Consent Spreadsheet, which we are required to check before posting a photo of a child, to ensure their parent has consented.

My co-editor-in-chief and I had to encourage the whole publication to embrace and work around this change, implementing new systems so we can adapt and continue working efficiently despite the setback. In the print production process, we began having our photo editor review all pages in a round of edits to confirm that all photos to be published had parental consent. I worked to make sure all members of our staff were literate in the new policies and its technicalities, and answered any questions that arose throughout this adjustment period.

The Photo Consent Spreadsheet we use to confirm we are legally allowed to publish images with students in them.

Another legal complication we faced was around the publishing of names and grades in our online content. Our school was considering prohibiting us from publishing full names and grades on our online site, portfolios and print edition. I knew this would have destroyed our journalistic credibility and made us vulnerable to errors such as misattributing quotes. I also knew that philosophically, this new rule infantilized students, stripped them of the responsibility of their voices, and removed the integrity that comes with having ownership of their words in a school publication.

In response to this possible policy change, the editors-in-chief of other school publications and I came together to discuss our concerns with the administration. We had multiple conversations with the High School administration, the head of school and the data protection officer. We also mobilized the students through spreading awareness. One method of advocacy we used was asking students to write what student journalism at ASL means to them on slip of paper, which we turned into a display at the center of our school.

Corrospondence with the administration, organizing a meeting to discuss how the

policy change would impact our publications.

Our wall with testemonies from different students about the importance of

student journalism in our community.

Ultimately, the administration was swayed by the community's reaction and decided to allow high school publications to publish names and grades online as normal. My largest takeaway from this situation was my new understanding of the importance of names and identification in journalism; the way journalism is held up by credibility and layers of personal responsibility and integrity. Only when we were nearly about to have this right taken away from us did I realise how important it was.

Additionally, as a leader of a publication, it was powerful to see how this legal situation divided our staff. Within our editorial board, we had disagreements on how to approach our interactions with the administration: some wanted to be more aggressive and take a strong stance, while others wanted a more friendly approach. I spent many classes advising my team on legal and ethical precedents while facilitating dialogue between editors on how best to approach the situation - balancing different solutions, researching UK law, understanding our ethics and how we would have to adapt if this potential change were to become a new reality. I noticed this discussion was coming at the expense of our work - we were being less productive in class, our issue was behind and our online posting had been lagging. My co-editor-in-chief and I had to decide to direct the editorial board away from the issue for the sake of the publication while we handled our legal troubles with the administration ourselves.

At the heart of leading a publication guided by ethical and legal knowledge is communication and dialogue. Without dialogue, solutions to ethically and legally complex situations cannot be found as efficiently. Participating in discussions with both my editorial board and the school's leadership taught me much about the reflection, patience, problem-solving and collaboration needed to lead a publication responsibly and ethically.

Source anonymity

Throughout my time as a journalist, I have written multiple stories including anonymous sources. I have always handled these cases according to our anonymous source policy. For each of these stories, including a story on homophobia, the Trump administration's ban on international students at Harvard, and political expression, I made sure to abide by our policy and ensure a source is only anonymous if they are put at risk or in potential harm as a result of their name being included. Managing anonymous sources involves balancing source well-being and ensuring the piece remains credible.

As editor-in-chief, I have an overview of how often our publication uses anonymous sources and why. Reporters and editors come to me when they have an anonymous source, and I act as a check to make sure all practices are aligned with our anonymous source policy, while respecting the anonymity of the individual. Recently, I managed a situation where a student was interviewed with their name included, yet some of their quotes raised a number of safeguarding concerns. After flagging this with our school's safeguarding team, I discussed with the source and the writer and the school's counsellors, where we decided to anonymise their quotes in order to keep them safe from any backlash or harm.

Relationships and authoritative sources

As editor-in-chief, I have ensured to establish personal connections with our high school administration, head of school, director of student life, safeguarding team, heads of departments and director of operations. I often find myself reaching out to these figures of authority when having to handle a possible ethical or legal issue, confirming a fact or asking for a right to reply. These relationships help maintain clear communication, honesty and trust between our publication and school leadership.

Profanity

Throughout my time as a journalist, I have been sure to abide by and ensure my staff is adhering to our obscenity policy. As editor-in-chief, I am responsible for making sure all profanity is flagged and judging whether its inclusion adds to the story in a productive and truthful manner. A large part of ethically managing profanity in the publication is ensuring a trusting relationship of mutual respect with our high school administration, who we reach out to approval before publishing any obscenities in our paper.

Right to reply

While covering more sensitive or nuanced topics in my reporting, I have often come across instances where a right to reply is necessary. For example, when writing a piece on homophobia, we had sources criticize and make claims against the school's health curriculum and administration. To include the right to reply, I reached out to our health department head and high school principal, with whom I had multiple converstions with, and included statements of response in the piece. Additionally, when writing a story on private university advising, I had multiple sources make statements against our school's university advising program. Thus, I reached out to the head of university advising, who made a statement in response correcting certain claims that were made in the piece, furthering dialogue on the page.

As editor-in-chief, I have helped my staff manage similar scenarios. For example, I informed an editor that a piece she had written criticizing the school's PE curriculum needed a statement in response from the PE department. I then assisted her, in person and over text, with reaching out to the PE department, summarizing her claims against them and then formatting their response to then be published in the piece. In another piece critisizing the student council and it's leadership written by a reporter, I helped her reach out to the student council to gather a response to her statements against them to include in the piece as a response.

Covering controversial topics

As a result of the passion and interest of our staff, our publication produces many pieces on controversial topics, whether it be global conflict, systemic injustice and discrimination or safeguarding-related subjects. I have edited pieces on conflicts such as the Sudan civil war, the Russia-Ukrainian war, the capture of Venezuelan President Maduro, ICE, and the Israel-Hamas war, as well as pieces on period stigma, eating disorders, bullying, and racial discrimination. When editing and writing these pieces, it is essential to keep their purpose in mind and the impact they will have, ensuring they will encourage healthy, productive discourse, respectfully and responsibly highlight the experiences of members in our community, and spread truth and awareness in an objective and well-intended fashion.

Earlier this year, I had a writer want to write an opinion on the Israel-Hamas conflict. In my community, we have a deeply ingrained yet unspoken policy that we do not discuss this conflict, as many members have personal connections to both sides of the conflict. A writer wanting to write on this topic that had been so heavily censored was shocking and courageous, and also unfortunately had potential consequences. To be completely honest, I was concerned about possible personal backlash, as we have had extreme cases of this in the past when students have spoken on this topic.

I met with the writer one-on-one and talked to them about their piece. I spoke honestly about my apprehensions and made sure they were aware of the possible risks that could come with sharing this opinion. I also spoke to them about the sensitivity of the issue, and making sure that they were being conscious of the language they were using, ensuring we are not spreading hate or any forms of discrimination on our publication. I encouraged them to write the piece honestly and true to their beliefs while also writing with respect, empathy and humanity.

After speaking to my adviser, we decided we would send out a staff-wide email informing our publication internally that this piece was being written, and invite anyone to write an opinion from an alternative perspective. The goal of this was to encourage healthy discourse within our publication and demonstrate to our staff that we support all non-hateful perspectives and views on this highly sensitive topic.

The all staff email I sent, informing our writers of the piece being written and opening up the possibilty for another perspective to be explored in the same issue.

An editor responded to this email and expressed interest in writing a piece on the topic from a different perspective. I had the same conversation with this writer as I did the first writer about possible risks, maintaining our ethics and approaching the issue with sensitivity.

Another ethical question came up when the first piece on the Israel-Hamas conflict was voted centerspread unanimously. Though I respected the vote of the editorial board, I was hesitant, as we prefer to put in-depth interview-based pieces center spread. Also, giving the first piece the center spread would give it more visibility in the paper, taking away the point of having the two pieces on equal standing and in dialogue with each other, giving more weight to one opinion and potentially reflecting a bias within our staff. To resolve this, I discussed my concerns with the editorial board, and we ultimately decided to put both opinions in the center spread, with equal space and power within the issue.

While editing these stories, I made sure to consult our DEI editor on style guides to make sure all language was appropriate. I also noticed that between the two pieces, there were discrepancies in the data they were using - they both used different sources to cite statistics such as casualties or deaths, and so we had to work together to sort out these inconsistencies. I also made sure that no claims were made based on identity, generalization or discrimination, and that the pieces were well researched, self-aware and written with a respectful and productive tone.

After publishing these pieces, we did get a significant reaction from different members of the community, yet none were blatantly negative or offensive. I learned a lot about handling complex ethical situations regarding controversial and sensitive topics, one lesson being the importance of adaptation and flexibility. Throughout this process, we hit many different bumpts, and we wouldn't have been able to resolve them without constant reflection, big-picture thinking, discussion and listening.