Groupthink in an editorial room

This became particularly problematic during our April Fool’s edition a few weeks ago. After the pitching process, I never questioned whether we should publish certain pieces — it was always a question of execution. I rushed us along into production, and I did not bother with soliciting additional feedback; that would slow us down, and we were juggling two different editions that month.

The paper blew up immediately upon distribution. Within the half hour, teachers were at the office making concerned reports; within the hour, administration sent out a message to campus security to collect all the papers.

The entire rest of the day was spent collecting feedback from students and staff members — reactions I should have anticipated, but never did. I was, again, frantic.

I spoke with my psychology teacher two weeks after the fact, regarding a statement that we sent out: a mix of apology, explanation and editorial critique of administration. He expressed surprise about the note at the end, stating our message represented the unanimous opinion of 14 editors. And when I recall the process of writing that statement, I remember the Friday before spring break: a hastily called lunch gathering, last-minute edits and meetings with administration after school. I remember a round-robin discussion where complex answers were discouraged — I grew visibly antsy when someone spoke for more than 30 seconds. I remember calling editors after class and asking a simple yes or no question: Did they agree with the statement? I do not remember going paragraph by paragraph, asking for comments as we went through each major point.

Groupthink was a term that circulated during my conversation with this teacher: Did we really make the optimal decisions, or did we make the popular ones? Did I foster an environment where dissent was welcome? I wondered how many of these editors sensed the agitation in the room, how many amended their verbal stance so as to not go against the grain. Yes, I hope for thoughtful editors, but I secretly wished for agreeable ones more. And I wondered how things might have been different if there was just one dissenting voice, one Juror No. 8.

With the satire misfire still at the forefront of our minds, we treaded more cautiously when we worked on producing our regular April edition this week. Upon voting on whether we agreed with the editorial cycle, we started with 13 for, one against and ended with 11 for, three against — the lowest agreement rate I believe we’ve had in the last three years. That is still a majority, but it was a number I previously saw as an indicator of failure. But when I look at it printed this month, I see a marker of deeper consideration, and a marker of editors feeling comfortable to disagree with a majority. Debate in a newsroom is both incredibly healthy, and incredibly inconvenient — and if I have learned anything from this month, it is that the inconvenience is the point.

Emma Shen is a senior at Aragon High School in San Mateo. Student News appears in the weekend edition. You can email Student News at news@smdailyjournal.com.