The Tattler is no stranger to controversy. In 2005, the paper attracted local and national attention during an incident in which the administration refused to allow publication of a “sexually explicit” cartoon that depicted stick figures in suggestive poses. The editorial board, led by Editor-in-Chief Rob Ochshorn ’05, sued ICSD for restricting The Tattler’s freedom of press, resulting in a drawn-out court case that showed the editorial board’s spirit and willingness to fight for student expression. This incident has shaped exterior impressions of the paper and remains in the foreground for us, even today. We believe the initiative shown by the editors at the time to be necessary for the success of any school publication that wishes to make an impact on the community.
The question of how to frame controversial material is thus integral for us to address. This year, we had until now received little feedback, and consequently, we have had limited opportunity to reflect on the matter. The strong response to one of the articles in our November Issue, however, is a compelling signal that we need to reaffirm our standards and editing procedure when handling future material that may be sensitive to the community.
In general, when viewing any piece of rhetoric, nuanced phrases specifically are what catch people’s attention, far more than summaries or comprehensive overviews. Throughout the 2016 presidential election, news and media outlets over the country have quoted Donald Trump’s claim that Mexicans are “rapists,” Hillary Clinton’s comment that many Trump supporters are “a basket of deplorables,” and so on, to an extent where statements like these, rather than actual policy, defined their campaigns for voters. Instead of using legitimate comparisons, mainstream media sensationalized the campaigns, aiding in Trump’s eventual victory. We recognize that the article submissions we receive that broach controversial topics` have the capability to create similar situations in our community.
Our Opinion section is by far most liable to toe the line when it comes to controversy. We do not plan to remove or alter the intent of student opinions that have the potential to incite others. As an open forum, our top priority is to facilitate sharing of information and discussion within the community, so it is all the more important that those who may disagree—even the majority—come to us to express their ideas and opinions. Only by hearing all sides of an issue are community members able to make informed, democratic decisions. Rarely, cases of fringe opinions such as neo-Nazi propaganda will crop up for news outlets, and to protect the safety of groups who may be endangered by threatening or hateful rhetoric, censorship is exercised. The very existence of these groups makes an explanation of their views important, however, and there are cases where, after extensive editing, we could publish an article on a fringe topic—and welcome writers to rebut. These hypotheticals would obviously be considered on a selective basis, and censorship would be on the table for such extreme views. The point is that we consider cohesion among different student groups and how the discussion stemming from a Tattler article could change that at a community like IHS. Many topics can’t be subverted simply by avoiding them.
For all articles, we always strive to ensure that factually accurate, well-supported, and respectful language is used while preserving as much as possible of the original submission. This manner of review is done at our discretion and is never meant to change the argument or purpose of an article. That being said, opinion pieces are naturally difficult to edit for diction because the writer’s style is so fundamental to the genre. As such, we will be instantiating a new editing procedure starting for our February Issue to address this, along with other internal concerns. The Tattler will extend its section editors’ deadlines significantly, allowing tighter writer-editor communication in which we provide feedback so writers can make changes, which fosters learning and improvement in writing ability. This also provides a longer period for discussion within the board for controversial material that we may want to handle in a certain way.
To any who may have been offended or worried by content in the November Issue, we apologize. We do emphasize, nevertheless, that it is our responsibility to publish sensitive material that has relevance to IHS and the region at large. Any readers with a comment about or response to a Tattler article, whether or not it is in the Opinion section, are highly encouraged to send a letter to editor@ihstattler.com to be published in the following issue. With your input, we hope to see greater interaction and discussion come out of future issues of The Tattler.