Join My High School Newspaper, and Thou Shalt Be Saved! Really?

I suppose that to Michael Moore, if I let myself be "dumbed down and distracted with useless nonsense," I'm merely "another brick in the wall," while if I rebel against adults for a "beautiful, unknown reason," I'm one of the charmingly rebellious heroes of the world. In his introduction of his "highschool newspaper," Moore sounds like an apocalyptic priest grabbing at a last chance to revive the human race: Don't let the adults water down your future with prejudice and lies. Don't let them hand you a world filled with restrictions and propaganda. Rebel, and thou shalt be saved! Fortunately, many teens across the States are already speaking out against this hierarchy, doing wonders - bringing Obama into the White House, making the first page of the Times by overthrowing dictatorships, and simply changing the world for the better. "Effing amazing," so to speak. Moore encourages more of this "effing amazing"-ness by outstretching his hand to teens all across the States - and perhaps even the world - and offering an "uncensored," exclusively teen-based online newspaper.

The initial reaction to Moore's newspaper might be a "cool;" we oppressed students finally get to give a piece of our minds to those idiotic adults!  But Moore makes several assumptions that discredits his newspaper, and makes it much less appealing to students like myself.

One, Moore illustrates a need that isn't wholly present in the status quo. Although Moore states that students are silenced of different opinions and perspectives by authority, namely schools, I'm not so sure that this is an accurate analysis of reality. "Adults who were so convinced they had done a heckuva job trying to dumb you down and distract you with useless nonsense?" Lies and propaganda? "You've been told politics isn't cool and that one person really can't make a difference?" True to some extent - in North Korea, maybe. I'm not sure what Moore experienced as a student for him to make such awful pictures of the world, but I certainly haven't grown up like this. When the US-Korea FTA or the mad cow disease brought debates and candle strikes all over the nation, students were actually encouraged to voice their opinions about the matter through various methods - newspaper scrapping, debating, or merely speaking up in class. Students aren't always "dumbed down" (maybe somewhat overbound with tests and quizzes, though); many are interested in politics or at least some matters in their daily lives. I haven't been to the States for five years now, and I have never gone to high school in the States, so I can't exactly account for the precise environment of an American high school. But in Korea, students are upheld as the "future of the nation" (perhaps somewhat saccharine, but still factually true when considering that Korea has very few natural resources), and adults don't usually dare to dumb them down.

The reality of school newspapers are also different from Moore's claims. As a student who is on her fifth year of working for a school newspaper (one year for PawPrints in my middle school in the North Carolina, two years for The Quill in Cheongshim International Academy, and one year for Minjok Herald in KMLA), I can say with confidence that I know more than the average student how a school newspaper works. In most schools, students are free to write about whatever subject in whatever voice, as long as the subject or the voice of the article isn't blatantly offensive (i.e. doesn't contain profanity, unsupported and explicit degradation, racial bias, and so on). I've criticized the school, the government, even the world in school newspapers before, and wasn't either criticized or blamed, as long as I had supporting evidence and a polite tone. Of course, I might have had the fortune of working in a more free environment than other students. But from my experiences and what I hear from my friends in various schools, I believe that most school newspapers actually allow freedom of press to a considerable extent, despite Moore's wild claims. If students want to go over this boundary, I'm sure that they can do this outside school without any big difficulties.

Two, he assumes that high schools must acknowledge total freedom of press and expression for students. But the purpose of a school is education, not dissent. Of course schools have to encourage discussion and critical minds, provide background information of conflicts, and nurture growing minds. Of course students do have rights and access to freedom ("students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gates," as so many Supreme Court cases have judged). Yet this does not mean, as I have stated above, that students can put whatever profanity and blatant degradation. Things - like newspapers - in school must have at least a decent appearance, for schools are places where pre-adults grow and practice living in society. Even in adult-version newspapers of more liberal nations, some things are censored or rewritten; the First Amendment is not absolute. If students are banned from writing about student strikes, perhaps it is because they are too extravagant and baseless in their criticisms? Perhaps they should write about the fundamental problem and its solutions rather than merely complaining about the school itself?

Three, he assumes that his newspaper is uncensored and thus very free. Is Moore's High School Newspaper truly uncensored, thus letting all teenager voices speak out to the world? I'm not so sure about that, despite Moore's assurances that it is. In his introduction of his High School Newspaper, Moore "asks [students] to send [their] stories and ideas and the best ones will be posted on MichaelMoore.com." Huh? So what's the exact definition of "best?" I suppose that "the best ones" could mean the ones that are properly edited and grammatically executed, but there are no guarantees that Moore isn't implying about the "best" desired content. Go to the High School Newspaper and look around - its posts delve into controversies like the rebellion in Egypt and the teaching of evolution in schools. Controversies indeed, but well developed, unbiased controversies? How come most if not all of the articles blatantly criticize Moore's version of the "adult world," leaving no room for the voices that actually might agree to some authority? I see posts that praise students' rebellions against their schools and authority, but none that say that these rebellions are poorly executed and rather blunt, if well-meant. To give a more radical example, say that I - a teen who is
perfectly legalized to send something to Moore's newspaper - turn in this very post, with its criticisms of Moore and relatively conservative acknowledgements of the present world today. Even if I have perfect grammar, structure, and diction, I hardly dare to hope that this post will make the first page of the High School Newspaper. After all, Moore wishes for the "best articles," and my voice doesn't exactly suit the best of his interests.So does Moore's newspaper uphold his assumption and foundation that his idea of an idealistic newspaper should be uncensored really fulfilled in reality? Not really.

I'm not so sure that Moore's High School Newspaper can be really called a student newspaper in the truest essence: it's not balanced at all, it's absurdly apocalyptic, it just doesn't seem like a newspaper.  Maybe it can, but only as a radical newspaper that serves more as a forum for criticizing the adult world. I'm sorry, but I think I'll have to pass up on this offer and continue working for Minjok Herald.

Or on second thought, maybe I really should send this post to Moore's newspaper, and see for myself how Moore reacts. Now that will be fun indeed.



- Motions
+ THB high school newspapers must not be censored of any subject.
+ THB the intellectual property/media of schools should represent schools before students.
+ THW promote aggressive political action of students. ("active" would be a better word than "aggressive;" what I meant by this term was strikes and relatively more active measures than voting and discussions)

- Oh, and I would recheck the demographical analysis of the 2008 presidential elections before stating that Obama only won the majority vote in 18-29 year old age groups. And since when was a 29-year-old considered a high school student?