Demand concrete examples & avoid ‘emotionalism’: How to cover school culture war stories

Education reporters explain how to cover this year’s politicized education stories without misleading readers or losing sight of everything else.

By Alexander Russo with reporting assistance from Colleen Connolly.

Education is in the news a lot these days, but not always in a helpful way.

Last week, The Grade contributor Greg Toppo took a close look at coverage of one such proposal — Florida’s rejection of math textbooks — and showed how rushed coverage of it gave its proponents lots of attention even though eventually it would turn out that the claims about the math textbooks were overstated.

“I’m worried that as we head into the midterms, it’s all going to be about partisan coverage,” CNN media analyst Brian Stelter said a few weeks ago, referencing the current wave of conservative proposals to revamp school operations. “And it’s going to be covered through a political lens.”

But the pressure to cover these hot-button proposals and protests is strong. News outlets probably don’t feel that they can avoid giving them at least some attention.

So what’s an education reporter or editor to do?

According to a group of journalists who shared their ideas, the keys to producing high-quality education coverage during times like these include avoiding “emotionalism” and unwittingly amplifying advocates’ talking points, as well as reading proposals carefully and asking for concrete evidence before deciding to make something a story.

DON’T BE THE UNWITTING TRANSCRIPTIONIST:

One of the biggest dangers is that education reporters’ attempts to cover a story end up unintentionally amplifying it, giving politicians and operatives a free pass rather than questioning their assertions and framing. So instead of focusing on the proposed changes, report on the evidence for the need to change. “I’m not a transcriptionist,” says EdWeek’s Stephen Sawchuk. “That’s not my job.”

What exactly is wrong with the current situation? How solid are the dramatic anecdotes you’re being given? Can they show you? If you don’t ask those questions in your stories, you’re giving people a free pass. Anyone making assertions needs to back them up. “You really have to be very careful,” notes Sawchuk. Otherwise, you can end up “inadvertently giving a megaphone to something that may not be true.”

“I’m not a transcriptionist. That’s not my job.”

GIVE LOTS & LOTS OF CONTEXT:

“Legislatures and their processes are particularly opaque to most readers and reporters need to be careful to explain things,” says The 74’s Beth Hawkins. She recalls a recent interview in which she had to explain that most of the bills she was being asked about called for rights “already well-established in law, and that — breathless headlines notwithstanding — [the new requirements] had already begun withering and disappearing.”

Hawkins also pointed out the political context during the segment, noting that elections were fast approaching and politicians were trying to rally their voters. “I suspect this made me an undesirably equivocal guest, but it’s really important,” Hawkins says.

READ THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL:

“The most important thing to do is to read the actual legislation,” says the Tampa Bay Times’ Jeff Solochek. “So many people don’t do that, from all sides.” Instead, they infer or assume that they know what the legislation says, but they could be wrong.

“Knowing the specific language that’s in the bill that really helps you to frame the question that you’re going to ask afterwards,” Solochek says.

Knowing the actual proposal — not just the press release — can help you explain to your readers what’s really going on and avoid factual errors like those that have plagued some outlets in covering these proposals.

Read The Grade’s weekly media commentary here.

FOCUS ON REAL-WORLD EFFECTS:

“I think that the most obvious thing is what we should always be doing, which is to try and get to who (the proposal) will impact,” says one Florida education reporter who did not want to be named. Ideally, the real-world effects may already be apparent, in the form of a canceled workshop or a book being pulled from the library or a learning company removing a video from its website because it’s perceived as sensitive.

Vague language about “chilling effects” isn’t really helpful, according to this reporter. “Give real examples of what it would mean, rather than just the Dems saying this would be a disaster and Republicans saying they’re protecting kids.”

“Give real examples of what it would mean, rather than just the Dems saying this would be a disaster and Republicans saying they’re protecting kids.”

TRY TO GET SOLO IN-PERSON INTERVIEWS:

“You need to get both sides of the story and you need to be careful to thoroughly interview someone from each viewpoint and make sure they’re fairly represented in your story almost equally as you can,” says the Detroit News’ Jennifer Chambers.

“Sit-down private interviews are better than approaching people in groups,” says Chambers, because “things can get out of hand when it’s multiple people talking at the same time.”

Sign up for the “Best Education Journalism of the Week” newsletter here. 

NO EVIDENCE? NO STORY.

“We’ve made a conscious decision not to write a story for every meeting we go to,” says the South Bend Tribune’s Carley Lanich, “because at a certain point it’s become less newsworthy now that a couple dozen parents go to a school board meeting if it’s the same couple dozen parents going every time.”

Instead, her paper has focused its attention on finding out if there are any real-world effects of these controversies and proposals. “Has this presence changed the way that administrators are approaching curriculum? Has it changed the amount of access that they’re granting to the public in the curriculum adoption process?”

Lanich says she does a lot of asking parents and others for evidence of either a problem or an impact. “I really try to ask for concrete proof of what it is these parents are concerned about, so that when we do report on it we can contextualize.”

“At a certain point it’s become less newsworthy now that a couple dozen parents go to a school board meeting if it’s the same couple dozen parents going every time.”

LIMIT ‘EMOTIONALISM’

“As reporters, we are often driven to the emotional, personal side of these stories,” notes Sawchuk. Reporters want to latch right onto the students who might be affected or the teachers who are scared. And there’s nothing wrong with that, according to Sawchuk.

But it’s equally important to report and describe the specifics of what’s going on. “Sometimes I think that we skip that step, and then everything is already in the realm of hysteria and emotionalism.”

“Sometimes I think that we skip that step, and then everything is already in the realm of hysteria and emotionalism.”

DEMAND CONCRETE ANSWERS:

“My primary advice is to never stop asking questions,” says another reporter who did not wish to be identified. So, when a government official or advocate announces some action or proposal, demand specifics and get precise definitions of the situation.

What definition of CRT are they using? How do they define SEL?

And if no answers are provided, reporters should tell readers that. “While it’s important to report what we know, it’s equally important — if not more so — to fill readers in on what we don’t know, and what public officials aren’t telling us.”

“It’s equally important — if not more so — to fill readers in on what we don’t know, and what public officials aren’t telling us.”

“I also believe reporters have a duty to avoid reactionary stories,” says this reporter. “Don’t get distracted by the political theater and noise. Reporters should focus on how the rejection of books may impact schools and families, and what process took place leading up to the rejection of those books.

And, finally: “Sometimes it’s best to take a deep breath, pump the brakes and make these considerations before jumping to publish a story online. I believe that would make for high-quality, responsible journalism that better informs readers and helps to cut down on confusion and unproductive discourse.”

Thanks to Detroit News K-12 reporter Jennifer Chambers, South Bend Tribune education reporter Carley Lanich, The 74’s Beth Hawkins, EdWeek’s Stephen Sawchuk, Tampa Bay Times education reporter Jeff Solochek, and two education reporters who did not wish to be named but who had lots of good things to add.

These are all great points, well worth considering in the weeks and months ahead. There are sure to be hot-button education debates and races during 2022, but if education journalists consider some of these ideas and approaches the coverage they produce is likely to be helpful to readers and the public discussion.

Previously from The Grade:
The culture war is the easy, less important story
The lamentable rise of ‘conflict’ journalism
The Great Math Textbook Hoax of 2022
People are fighting. Is that news?