The ongoing debate surrounding the Madison Metropolitan School District Board's Oct. 8 decision mandating that an instrumental version of the national anthem be played in schools has reflected poorly on almost all parties involved.
From media outlets incorrectly reporting that the board had banned the Pledge of Allegiance, to school board members who were confused as to what their original vote meant, to citizens who slapped 'Un-American' labels on all those who disagreed with their points of view, the entire debate has been woefully misinformed.
The board voted 6-1 at a charged public meeting Monday night to allow district schools to choose between the pledge and the national anthem for a state-required daily moment of patriotism.
State statute 118.06(2) was approved along with the state budget Gov. Scott McCallum signed Aug. 30, but many school districts did not realize it was in effect until after Sept. 11, when issues of patriotism and civil liberties took on a new meaning.
Despite the confusion surrounding the board's decision, local and national media outlets should have been more responsible in their reporting of the matter. In particular, there were repeated references to a 'ban' on the pledge and early reports that the matter was hurting city tourism, which later turned out to be erroneous. Just yesterday, a headline in the Wisconsin State Journal screamed 'Board reverses pledge ban.'
But nowhere in the exact text of the Oct. 8 decision does the word 'ban' appear. The decision, approved on a 3-2 vote, is as follows:
'Instruct the superintendent to instruct the principals to play the national anthem without words (an instrumental version) over the public address system or any other mechanical reproduction using whatever technology is available, at a point in time the administrative team deems appropriate during the school day.'
Thus, the board mandated the national anthem be played'a decision the media have perceived as a ban on the Pledge of Allegiance.
The media's confusion stems from the board members' own misunderstanding. After the meeting, members disagreed on what they had been voting for, adding to the confusion over what policy they had approved. School board members should have been clearer with one another and more aware that any action they took in the matter would be scrutinized in an extremely sensitive environment.
We are at war, and these are emotional times. The school board should have taken more account of this new atmosphere when it made its Oct. 8 decision. And for the same reason, the media should have taken greater pains to tell this story in equal and balanced tones.
Media have an obligation to be fair and accurate in their reporting. This may seem like an obvious statement, but it bears repeating in this case. For better or worse, in a large community such as Madison, most citizens receive their accounts of meetings from local TV, radio and newspapers, rather than attending meetings in person or speaking directly with others who have. By repeatedly characterizing the board's action as a ban on the pledge and not thoroughly examining the actual decision, media outlets inflamed an already-heated situation, touching a raw nerve seemingly for their own gratification.
In light of all that has happened since Sept. 11 and given the nation's current emotional state, it is especially important that all media be careful and thoughtful in their coverage. We as journalists must be aware of this and check our facts even more carefully than before.
