A response to Spotlight’s online accusations against the Falcon

In December 2013, Spotlight published an online page (see http://spotlightedc.com/news.html) about the Falcon’s reporting for the story titled “Tutoring in the Shadows.” In particular, the message argued that the story was “fabricated and untrue,” and publicly demanded an apology for “manipulating the story intentionally.” These allegations are false and unfair, so the Falcon would like to make a few clarifications.

Firstly, we decided to interview Spotlight for the sole purpose of understanding its side of the issue in the following question: Is it ethically OK for tutoring services to acquire quizzes for certain classes and then disseminate these quizzes to other students? Our intention was never to malign Spotlight or accuse them of cheating. Rather, the story recognizes that this issue lies in the gray area and that the definition of cheating is vague.

This was clarified multiple times in the interview, when former editor-in-chief Samuel Liu, a 2014 graduate who contributed reporting to the story, told Spotlight owner Anne Yu, “There are a lot of different sides to this story. Some people think it's unethical for tutoring services, others don't. In no way are we taking a stance. In no way are we trying to take down your business.” Even if Spotlight was confused after the interview, Liu clarified in a follow-up email dated before the online accusation (Oct. 24, 2013) that “This is a story asking a moral question and not one blatantly trying to accuse you. This has always been our story’s focus. We are sorry if you misinterpreted it to be any other way.”

In addition, Spotlight said that reporters failed to distinguish between quizzes and tests and that we were “mixing both and making wrongful claims.” While we acknowledge that our initial email for an interview request used the word “test,” Yu made it blatantly clear at the very beginning of the interview that there is a distinction (“quiz is quiz, test is test”). After that distinction was made, we immediately rectified our jargon and continued to restrict the discussion in the interview, and the focus of the story, to only quizzes. As quizzes to do go home, the ethical questions about what tutors and students should do with them are still relevant and valid.

To be doubly sure, Liu sent an email on Oct. 24, 2013, to Spotlight stating “We’re not writing a story on tests. We’re writing it on sharing old quizzes, something that you have confirmed with us. I thought this was clear since our first interview. I’ll say it again: the story is on sharing of previous quizzes, and whether this is ethical. We take no stance.” Given that this was made clear, there is no reason for Spotlight to call us out for ignoring and falsifying their claims.

Regarding the supposed “fabrication” of the story, we would first like to point out that the story was never published at the time of Spotlight’s post, nor written for that matter. As a result, Spotlight’s position before the newspaper could finish compiling sources to get the most accurate story possible was premature and unjustified. Moreover, it is unfair to claim that we “have clearly violated the principle of journalism” and have “damaged reputation and integrity of others, including our business and all of our students, as well as their own high school newspaper” when none of our reporting was publicly available until now.

Nevertheless, Spotlight said that we failed to provide any information about the source who prior to taking a quiz, received an identical copy from Spotlight, the motivation for the interview. This was solely to protect the source’s identity, because at the time, he had not yet given us permission to go on the record or to share his story with other sources. Furthermore, Spotlight attacked the Falcon for not validating the story or seeking other sources. In the story, we present four of six accounts from student sources, three teacher sources, one administration perspective as well as Spotlight representative Yu herself. The student sources and Yu have all confirmed that Spotlight does indeed have past quizzes from SHS teachers on file.

Moreover, to ensure that our reporting is up to date, we contacted Spotlight again this year, and both Yu and Spotlight’s mathematics tutor Chung Chiang had no new comment. Yu even added in an email response that she reviewed her interview with Falcon reporters from last year and “couldn't find anything [she had] said that is untrue.”

Although we began reporting for the story last year, we delayed publication until this year because Liu had sent his sister as a prospective customer to ask Spotlight whether they had past exams last year. While some newspapers send reporters undercover as part of investigative reporting, our adviser Mike Tyler was unhappy when he found out that this had occurred since he doesn’t think high school students should be using this debatable  reporting technique. He suggested we wait on the story until Liu graduated in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and to ensure our reporting was as fair and robust as possible.

In addition, Spotlight complained that we were uncooperative in sending them an interview transcript. However, just five days after Spotlight emailed its initial request for the transcript (on Oct. 19, 2013), we replied with a message agreeing to “Give you a transcript of your quotes” on Oct. 23, 2013. In the same email, Liu wrote, “Personally, I'd like to thank you for holding us to a higher journalistic responsibility. Sources don't often demand that they're accurately represented, and our only response can be increased vigor in attempting to represent you fairly.” The promised quotes and voice recording were sent as soon as we finished transcribing the 30-minute-long interview, just over a week later on Nov. 1, 2013.

Finally, Spotlight quoted principal Paul Robinson claiming that our story last year was “untrue from the beginning.” However, Robinson did not know our story dealt with quizzes, not tests, and certainly does not serve as a substitute for on-the-record sources who have claimed that our story is indeed true. In addition, we have updated Robinson with the story before publication this year and he told us, and Yu, that he believes our reporting is fair and that we are not targeting Spotlight.

Over the past month, we have also worked closely with Frank LoMonte, director of the Student Press Law Center, in an effort to ensure that the story meets the standards of fair reporting and avoids libel.

If Spotlight or any member of the community still has concerns about the validity of our reporting or the story, they are welcome to send us a letter to the editor at deepti.kannan@saratogafalcon.org or sabrina.chen@saratogafalcon.org. The Falcon can publish these in full online, but may be unable to print all of them in the print edition for space reasons. The letters will also be subject to editing for grammar, spelling and style and may be reduced in length in the print edition.