RENDIMIENTO DE LAS INSTALACIONES TÉRMICAS

RQ1 questioned the prevalence of experiences with censorship practices among college newspaper editors and administrators. To examine overall prevalence of administrative censorship, an index was created by combining responses to questions regarding administrative requests not to publish a story or report on an issue, subtle or overt threats of discipline of student staff members, threats of cuts to student staff members’ scholarships, threats to publication funding, threats against advisers’ jobs, and threats against student staff members’ jobs.

Of the editor-respondents, 60% reported experiencing at least some instance of one or more of the aforementioned administrative censorship practices, with 51.6% reporting being asked by an administrator not to publish a specific content item or report on an issue and 86.2% reporting being asked by administrators to publish a specific content item (see Table 1). This is in contrast to Bodle’s 1991 survey of college newspaper advisers, which indicated that only 14.2% of college newspapers had experienced one or more administrative request not to publish a specific item or report on an issue, and only 28.9% had experienced one or

more administrative request to publish a news item.1 _{However, the high percentage of editor-}

respondents reporting at least one instance of administrative censorship in the last year reflects previous research by Shaniece B. Bickham and Jae-Hwa Shin, which indicated that editors believe censorship to be a problem in the abstract.2

Additionally, 26.4% of editor-respondents with advisers reported being asked by their adviser not to publish a story or report on an issue (M=1.38, SD=.733), and 65.5% reported their advisers reading the content of their newspaper prior to publication (M=2.65,

SD=1.617).

Taken together, reports of administrative censorship by editor-respondents suggest that the censorship that previous studies have identified at the high school level—with 73% of high school administrators and newspaper advisers reporting in a 2001 survey that their newspaper is censored3_{—also exists to a slightly lesser degree at the college level.}

While a high percentage of editor-respondents reported experiencing administrative censorship, few administrator-respondents reported the same. Of the administrator-

respondents, 10.7% reported experiencing at least some instance of one or more of the aforementioned administrative censorship practices in the last year, with 9.5% reporting asking (or knowing of another administrator) asking the student newspaper not to publish a specific item (M=1.11, SD=.345) (see Table 2). Additionally, 49.3% of respondents reported

1 _{John V. Bodle, Measuring the Tie between Funding and News Control at Student Newspapers, 71} JOURNALISM &MASS COMM.Q. 905 (1994).

2 _{Shaniece B. Bickham and Jae-Hwa Shin, Organizational Influences on Student Newspapers, 28} SOUTHWESTERN MASS COMM.J. 1 (2013)

3 _{Lillian Lodge Kopenhaver and J. William Click, High School Newspapers Still Censored Thirty Years after} Tinker, 78 JOURNALISM &MASS COMM.Q. 321 (2001)

administration asking the student newspaper to publish a specific item at least once in the last year (M=1.83, SD=0.964), and 67.1% reported administration asking to discuss a story with newspaper staff after publication (M=1.90, SD=0.785). This logically follows Bickham and Shin’s research, which found that while editors believe censorship is a problem,

administrators do not.4

Table 1:

Prevalence of editor experiences with censoring practices

Statement: How often, in the last year … M SD

% reporting some occurrence (>1 on scale) Administration has asked a staff member not to

publish a story or report on an issue 1.76 .874 51.6% Administration has asked the publication to publish a

specific content item 3.25 1.379 86.2%

Publication adviser has asked a staff member not to

publish a story or report on an issue 1.38 .733 26.4% Advisory board has asked a staff member not to

publish a story or report on an issue 1.05 .225 5.3% Publication adviser has read the publication content

before publication 2.65 1.617 65.3%

Administration has contacted a staff member to discuss a story before publication (not including responses to interview requests)

2.01 .936 66% Administration has contacted a staff member to

discuss a story after publication 2.54 1.099 81%

Table 2:

Prevalence of administrator experiences with censoring practices

Statement: How often, in the last year … M SD

% reporting some occurrence (>1 on scale) Administration has asked a newspaper staff member

not to publish a story or report on an issue 1.11 .354 9.5% Administration has asked the publication to publish a

specific content item 1.83 .964 49.3%

Administration has contacted a staff member to discuss a story before publication (not including responses to interview requests)

1.43 .825 26.7% Administration has contacted a staff member to

discuss a story after publication 1.90 .785 67.1%

1 = never and 5 = very often.

Editors reported very little instance of overt or strongly pressured (subtle) threats against their publications and members of their publication staffs. The most commonly experienced threat was that of funding cuts, which 22.8% of respondents from newspapers that are not entirely self-funded reported experiencing either overtly or subtly (See Table 3). Only one respondent reported a student staff member facing either overt or subtle threat of scholarship cuts related to newspaper content. Only 5.2% of editor-respondents with advisers reported administrative threats or strong pressures to their advisers’ jobs. This indicates the issue of administrative retaliation against advisers may have receded since Bodle’s 1991 survey of college newspaper advisers, which indicated 16.8% of advisers at four-year universities (including public and private) had experienced overt administrative threats or strong pressures on their jobs.

Administrator-respondents rarely reported threats (see Table 4). One respondent reported one or more instance of subtle threats to the funding of the campus newspaper because of content, and one respondent reported one or more instance of subtle threats to the adviser’s position in the last year. No other threats were reported, and a sizable minority of administrator-respondents selected “not sure” for these items.

Table 3:

Prevalence of Threats and Pressures Because of Newspaper Content Reported by Editors

Statement Overt

threat Subtle No threat N A staff member’s job has been threatened. 1.1% 6.3% 92.6% 189 The adviser’s job has been threatened. 0.6% 4.6% 94.9% 174 The publication has faced possible funding

cuts. 8.3% 14.5% 77.2% 145

A staff member has faced possible

scholarship cuts. 0% 0.5% 99.5% 187

A staff member has faced disciplinary

Table 4:

Prevalence of Threats and Pressures Because of Content Reported by Administrators Statement Overt _threat Subtle No threat Not sure N A staff member’s job

has been threatened. 0% 0% 92.6% 10.7% 195

The adviser’s job has

been threatened. 0% 1.4% 88.9% 9.7% 72

The publication has faced possible funding cuts.

0% 1.3% 84% 8% 70

A staff member has faced possible scholarship cuts.

0% 0% 92% 8% 75

A staff member has faced disciplinary action.

0% 0% 93.3% 6.7% 75

When asked what topics they think their administrations disapprove of them covering, 39.7% of editor-respondents reported believing their administrations disapproved of their publications covering administrative decisions, 36.4% college personnel issues, 33.8% Title IX and sexual assault, 31.3% sex, 27.8% drugs, and 23.7% campus crime (descriptive statistics on other topics can be seen in Table 5).

Table 5:

Topics editors think administrations disapprove of newspapers covering

Topic

% reporting perceived disapproval

n = 198

Administrative Decisions 39.9% (79)

College Personnel Issues 36.4% (72)

Title IX and Sexual Assault 33.8% (67)

Sex 31.3% (62) Drugs 27.8% (55) Campus Crime 23.7% (47) Other 8.3% (7) Student Government 7.1% (14) Campus Athletics 6.1% (12) Greek Life 5.6% (11) Campus Events 2.0% (4)

Community News and Events 1.5% (3)

Administrators gave little indication of disapproval. When asked what topics they wish the student newspaper at their institutions would not cover, 17.3% of administrator- respondents reported wishing the newspaper would not cover college personnel issues (see Table 6). Other topics yielded very few or no positive responses. Similarly, when asked what

topics they disapprove of student newspapers covering, 8% reported disapproving of coverage of personnel issues, and other topics yielded very few or no positive responses.

Table 6:

Topics administrators disapprove of student newspapers covering

Topic

% reporting wish for avoidance

n = 75

% reporting disapproval n = 75

College Personnel Issues 17.3% (13) 8.0% (6)

Other 5.3% (4) 4.0% (3)

Drugs 2.7% (2) 1.3% (1)

Administrative Decisions 1.3% (1) 0.0% (0)

Sex 1.3% (1) 1.3% (1)

Greek Life 1.3% (1) 0.0% (0)

Title IX and Sexual Assault 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

Campus Crime 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

Student Government 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

Campus Athletics 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

Campus Events 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

Community News and Events 0.0% (0) 1.3% (1)