Blog Discussion: Self Censorsip in College Media. Filak and Reinardy 2009

I'm not entirely shocked to find out in this article that some college newspapers content is censored by the advisers and college upper management. I also believe that it is wrong to censor it. Like the article states, an adviser should be there to mentor the students, and most importantly not suppress the act of free speech. It's unfortunate to hear that some advisers are fearful of their jobs because of this. What should they do about this? Should they have an addendum agreement signed before they take the position that states some B.S. similar to "I the adviser will mentor these editors to the best of my knowledge in reporting the news as freely as they would like in the most professional manor as possible and should not be held accountable for their freedom of speech. This advising of their choices does not reflect the opinions or views of the college or university and I should not be fired for inspiring creativity." ? It could only help them.

So what's the issue with upper management at these institutions? Is college media now trying to be slanted by big money universities also? College news papers may be one of the last printed news sources that hasn't entirely been slanted by a major media corporation or business so it's nice to read the free range of writing and topis that go in to it.

This reminds me of the Jamie Pizzi article in last year's The Sandspur (http://social.rollins.edu/wpsites/immigrationandmulticulturalismintheus/2012/03/23/jamie-pizzi/) which caused an uproar in the Rollins Community and I'm sure almost cost somebody their job. Pizzi obviously had a strong opinion on the subject, and I think it's great that they let her article be printed, but the adviser at the time should have probably mentored her in a way that would have educated her on the subject in more detail. This article caused professors at the college to post comments on the article that I'm sure left Pizzi crying and calling for someone's head. Now if she were educated and explained the implications correctly, then this issue may not have happened. Maybe not though, bu obviously just an idea.

Otherwise this is a great article that looks in to the dark area of what a campus media adviser deals with on a daily basis. It seems there is a lot of pressure that is coming from the students and the university. Students should be able to express themselves how ever they feel, but there should be the reliable and credible adviser there to give them an assessment and the alternative routes to media that compelling and progressive, but also keeps everyone happy.

Blog Discussion: 1 Newspaper, 3 Students: A simple plan for recruiting, training and retaining. Pearson 2007

Coming from my first experiences with WPRK compared to this article, I am not surprised by the info in this article and the similarities that Pearson experienced at California Baptist University and Rollins College. "Stale odors, a small fridge in the corner, local radio station stickers", just to name a few, are a few similar things you'll encounter, but more importantly you'll experience the quote "students who speak negatively about their experiences with advisers and the wrong group of people over seeing the WPRK as an organization. Why the hell has Rollins let this happen? Coming in to this situation with a professional background I was appalled to experience this at WPRK. We're talking about the oldest college radio station in Florida, and the first, yes first FM radio station in Central Florida. The fact that Rollins had never sold the rights in the past shocks me though, because if your only going to do the bare minimum then why not just sell and make a profit? Instead, Rollins chooses to pay for the operation of WPRK but not for the proper operation of it. If you let clueless students operate it along with undertrained volunteers, then that is exactly what it is going to act and sound like. Anyways....

So, like the article states, does Rollins believe it is just too expensive and tricky politically to keep campus media alive? I'm not positive, but they sure act like it. This article states that some campus media organizations are being shut down because there's no money being made from it. I would directly associate this to the leaders of these organizations. Why, well because personally I've raised somewhere in the $5,000 range in underwriting and collectively another $11,000. The majority of this money was easily obtained. If the was a competent individual in the higher position who cared about this, then the money would be raised on a daily basis, and could triple these figures monthly, if dedicated.

On the physical aspects again, it was interesting to find out Pearson also noticed the locations as being "in a basement, or rooms resembling closets." Most importantly Pearson points out that activities in media design, writing, producing, require an inspirational setting. Luckily, we've got a great location with WPRK, but not so much for the rest of Rollins Campus Media. It would be great to bring them all to the same level of the Mills building one day.

"Team members must be trained properly to ensure excellent work." This is a GREAT idea! I liked reading that this is what should be happening, but in reality is not happening. The ship will sail regardless, yes, and this maybe the thought process of Rollins, but what if the ship sailed with excellence and also raised money for the not for profit status?

Blog discussion: You're fired! Addington 2006

To quote this article from the beginning, "Considerable teaching, coaching, evaluating, and documenting should occur before a student media staff member is terminated". This is almost nonexistent at WPRK. There is no teaching, very little coaching, and evaluating is looked at as if you're trying to be a "micro manager". This was the first thing that came to mind from this article. It then goes on to say that "Advisers to college media staffs are governed by an ethical code to act as educators and managers, who discipline staff". We have none of this at WPRK and never would have known that this was a standard until reading this article.

On one hand, some WPRK staff like it how it is, meaning they're not told to do anything, or evaluated on anything from a credible source, so they don't. Should these people be terminated form their volunteer position? Probably not, because they were never advised on media procedure int he first place. I believe that evaluating job performance is essential, especially for the student because it teaches them the culture of what's expected in a real life working environment. WPRK does not have a "teacher" or a "role model" and this is an issue with the productivity in daily operations of an FM radio station.

First, I believe it's important for us to have the proper adviser and leadership before we even start to discuss the reasons of termination. We have a "constitution", but we do not have a "staff/student policy manual", which will give it in writing to each staff member the rules they must follow. This would make the job of termination easier for the GM/adviser. Simple guidelines for "ground for dismissal" as the articles suggests:

1. Too many unexcused absences

2. Poor work ethic

3. Policy violations

I agree that it would be a good thing to implement a "Warning policy". This has been attempted in the past, but no one has ever followed through with it. This would be the job of a GM.adviser of course. No student should have to deal with this.