the im pact of com petition, the im pact of journalists previous experience, the im pact of the application of standards on sourcing Many professors choose to teach these cases in the Socratic style. In this case, the professor could open the class with the major principle, asking the following Was the Pioneer Press acting to advance or retard the public's right to know? Was the newspaper justified in treating this as an in vestigative story or should it have treated it as breaking news and reported the NCaa investigation right away? You could proceed by questioning students who have taken alternative sides. Perhaps play one role yourse lf, maybe the president of the university or the publisher of the paper. Thus, you could have the student who favored the investigation call the president after the story was printed. As president you would force the student to justify what he or she had done by asking questions and making accusations: You sandbagged me! You didn t think I-or the adm inistration generally-was honest enough to conduct our own investigation. You felt your own honesty and inte grity were superior to ours. why didnt you call me at the outset and tell me you had gotten wind of the story? Why did you assume I knew the details when I didnt? Why did you withhold information? Then lay out a similar series of questions for the students who take the other side trying to force them to clarify and justify the moral and professional grounds for their opinions. Try to get the students to discuss each point and cite evidence and principle behind their decisions Ask factual questions as well as moral ones: Where did you get this watchdog notion of the press? Who enunciated it? In what Supreme Court decision? What kind of case Does the role apply here? Is there a moral arrogance im plied in the judgment that the press should withhold information until it thinks the public is ready to hear it? Do any of the criticisms of the public have moral force or com pelling evidence Try not to give your own opinion -at least until the end of class A. Some questions about the public's right to know might include these: What constraints did the paper face in devoting its resources to this story? Who determined how fast the story would advance? How was the pacing of the story affected by the sports editors detem ination to make it Sid-proof? By the reporters quest to handle his source effectively? What about the decision to publish? Were the right questions asked about tim ing? Did the editors draw well-founded conclusions to support their decision to run the story hen they did? What was the effect of their decision on the publics view of the story? On the univers ity's view? On the news paper itseIf?• the impact of competition, • the impact of journalists' previous experience, • the impact of the application of standards on sourcing. Many professors choose to teach these cases in the Socratic style. In this case, the professor could open the class with the major principle, asking the following: Was the Pioneer Press acting to advance or retard the public's right to know? Was the newspaper justified in treating this as an investigative story or should it have treated it as breaking news and reported the NCAA investigation right away? You could proceed by questioning students who have taken alternative sides. Perhaps play one role yourself, maybe the president of the university or the publisher of the paper. Thus, you could have the student who favored the investigation call the president after the story was printed. As president, you would force the student to justify what he or she had done by asking questions and making accusations: "You sandbagged me! You didn't think I—or the administration generally—was honest enough to conduct our own investigation. You felt your own honesty and integrity were superior to ours. Why didn't you call me at the outset and tell me you had gotten wind of the story? Why did you assume I knew the details when I didn't? Why did you withhold information?" Then lay out a similar series of questions for the students who take the other side, trying to force them to clarify and justify the moral and professional grounds for their opinions. Try to get the students to discuss each point and cite evidence and principle behind their decisions. Ask factual questions as well as moral ones: Where did you get this 'watchdog' notion of the press? Who enunciated it? In what Supreme Court decision? What kind of case? Does the role apply here? Is there a moral arrogance implied in the judgment that the press should withhold information until it thinks the public is ready to hear it? Do any of the criticism s of the public have moral force or compelling evidence? Try not to give your own opinion—at least until the end of class. A. Some questions about the public's right to know might include these: What constraints did the paper face in devoting its resources to this story? Who determined how fast the story would advance? How was the pacing of the story affected by the sports editor's determination to make it "Sid-proof?" By the reporter's quest to handle his source effectively? What about the decision to publish? Were the right questions asked about timing? Did the editors draw well-founded conclusions to support their decision to run the story when they did? What was the effect of their decision on the public's view of the story? On the university's view? On the newspaper itself?