Expose:

SJSU – Reporting Digital Freedoms With Bias

August 26, 2009 by Kyle Brady
Tags: Biased Reporting, Copyright, CS146, Digital Freedoms, Digital Rights, Failed Journalism, SJSU
As required by the FTC, a Full Disclosure is available - this piece adheres to the Code of Ethics

---

Investigate the issue for yourself, all the files are available.

Or follow the update thread for the latest chapter in the saga

Last semester at San Jose State University, a Computer Science Professor (Dr. Beeson) threatened to fail me in his CS146 class for posting code solutions online after the assignments were due, which I fought vehemently against.  I eventually not only passed the class, but received an official ruling from the Judicial Affairs Office that my actions were completely within my rights as a student – I considered this a win for not only myself, but the future of SJSU since I hoped this case would become a precedent.

While this may still be the case, two worrisome issues have arisen:

1. Dr. Beeson seems to believe he can simply claim copyright on his assignments and prevent students from posting them [see here, "Copyright" section] without serious code augmentation, effectively ensuring that most of his students (if not all) will not take the time or effort required to post solutions publicly.


2. The Spartan Daily, SJSU’s daily student news publication, contacted me recently to setup an interview me for a “feature article” in the full-color issue that would reopen the paper for the Fall semester on 8/24/2009.  While they made a great effort to appear as if they were going to present the issue in a fair and unbiased light, this is simply not the case.   As a school-funded publication, they apparently thought it best to slant the facts, arrange details and quotes, and even “photoshop” a picture of me to portray my crusade as one with trouble-making intent, rather than as defense of a noble cause.

Issue 1 – Dr. Beeson

Plans are currently being formulated to fight his new method of restricting the public posting of code, and details will be shared elsewhere as it progresses.  While I applaud his attempts to circumvent the ruling and achieve his goals via a different method, this is still unacceptable and should not be allowed to continue.  Even though I’m no longer in a class of his, nor ever will be again, the issue has long since been one of principle - to which I’m willing to devote time and effort in order to stand up for what I initiated.

Issue 2 – Spartan Daily

The Article

[read the article - bottom of page 1, PDF file]

At first reading, the article seems simply short, without many facts, and blasé.

With a second reading, however, it becomes clear there is a hidden agenda courtesy of the Daily’s Suzanne Yada:

1. The fact that the code was of my own creation, and therefore my property and copyright to do with as I please, was entirely avoided, with the associated ownership legality given the same silent treatment.  Instead, they chose to make it appear as if I was only interested in showing off as some sort of open source guru.


2. Copyright was addressed in terms of the homework assignments being created by Beeson, with no statement that the decision by the JAO implied Beeson didn’t have true copyright of the assignments in the first place.  Instead, I’m quoted as once again being arrogant and the article remains without any reference to the reality of Beeson’s false copyright claims.


3. The article closes with Beeson’s recent machinations to prevent the public posting of code, not only seeming to endorse the idea but also giving him the last word – which is very important when creating lasting impressions on readers.  I was asked to comment on this very topic during the interview, and said something to the effect that these were expected and should not be allowed to continue, but my comments were omitted.


4. I’m quoted only twice for a complex issue, whereas SJSU has three voices with a total of seven quotes.  The phone interview with Suzanne lasted approximately forty minutes and covered the entirety of this issue.


5. No outside sources were cited or asked for quote, despite that places like BoingBoing, TechDirt, and ArsTechnica helped make my case successful and held plenty of external insight.  Additionally, professors from other universities worldwide could have been asked for comment, which they would have gladly given if the emails and comments I received during early June are any indication.  I’m sure even the EFF would have loved to comment.


6. No information was given to readers for those curious enough to investigate on their own - neither this site nor the page holding all the details of the case.

The Photo

click for larger size

The Spartan Daily was extremely interested in setting up a photo session with one of their photographers to produce a picture for the article.  I was wary of meeting the photographer, Stefan Armijo, but the actual photoshoot left me with confidence that it would be presented fine - little did I know.

However, when the image appeared in print, yet more issues arose:

1. The photo has been distorted to make me appear grotesque and disproportionate – my forearms are gigantic, while I have a tiny head.  Whether this was a byproduct of a lens or software is irrelevant, but it's obvious that considerable time was spent inside an advanced photo-editing tool:  besides the code-overlay, the highlight on my face and overall lighting has been modified.  It's worth noting that the "before" picture included above was only given to me after I had expressed my distaste for the piece and my intentions for a rebuttal - not the best circumstances for a legitimate before-after comparison, given recent history.


2. The overlaid code, which I knew about in advance, is not only not code from SJSU assignments, but trash code as well.  The code comes from an introductory C class I was forced to take over the summer at a different institution (Mission College), and posted online for archiving purposes.  It’s clearly labeled as “missionProjects”, with “sjsuProjects” available just above the link, and there’s a text file for each assignment indicating the code is not of high quality and was written quickly/sloppily to meet only the barest requirements and pass the class with little effort.  All of this was ignored, and now crap code unrelated to the issue has been forcibly associated with the “Beeson Debacle”.


3. In both the “print edition” and the “digital print edition”, but not the web version, the caption for the photo reads “This is a picture I took where ever I took it of whomever it is I took it of while doing whatever is is that they were doing aksjd lkajs dkjaslkdj alksj”.  A correction was printed in the following day’s edition, but the damage had already been done:

click for larger

The Charge

As should be obvious from the evidence already provided, this entire article was an attempt by SJSU to discredit me, my opinion, the case, and its results.  When I quite angrily expressed my sentiments to Suzanne, her defense was that the story was “edited from 800 words to 500 at the last minute and much of what you mention were taken out”, and invited me to write a response letter that they would print – edited, perhaps?

In a later email, I expressed my sorrow that I had ever corresponded with her in the first place or even agreed to participate in the article – I acted on the assumption that journalistic integrity would be respected, and I would not end up defamed and discredited.  Who would willingly participate in such an act?

Embarrassments and regrets were expressed by Suzanne, supposedly on behalf of the staff, blaming the photo miscaptioning on editing software and inexperienced students.  But can regrets be expressed for something that was likely intentional?  The SJSU Administration, in all probability, leaned on the publication to shed some good light on the school since it was widely panned by highly-visible critics worldwide, and the results are obvious to any discerning reader who knows even the slightest information about the situation, who I am, or even what I look like.

As I say in an email to Suzanne, this whole affair has been one misstep after another by apparently the entire staff at the Spartan Daily, with both her and the publication’s journalistic integrity now highly suspect.  Doctoring photos, misrepresenting information, and refusing to provide equal voice to opposing sides are the very basis and definition of unprofessional journalism.  Especially if San Jose State exerted influence to produce this result.

We'll see if they print my response letter in Thursday's edition without editing it in favor of themselves or the administration.

--- --- ---

Update (8/28/2009 11:45am PST): TechDirt picked this up, agreeing that Beeson probably can't copyright the project titles, but that asking not to make it 100% easily available via Google is understandable and reasonable. I agree, and this is what I'm rallying around.

Update (8/28/2009 12:47pm PST): I got an email from Stefan, the photographer, expressing concerns about what I said about him and the use of the material.  All material, both photos and article clips, have been given proper attribution, and the comment about him "never responding to email" has been removed.

--- --- ---

Email Correspondence



From:  Me

To:  Suzanne

Date:  8/24/2009 6:54am

Subject:  Article Response, Version Lite

Hi Suzanne,

A few points:

1. Was this really the "big story" you mentioned it was intended to be?  Because it pretty much skates over only the barest of the issue, not to mention the work I went through to win this case.  Such as BoingBoing, which you found the story through and should have received a reference, or my defense of my actions using pre-existing SJSU polices, cases, and statements.


2. It's common practice in the journalism world that when you mention a website, you reference the URL at least once somewhere, or give a link when online.  I would have appreciated this common courtesy.


3. You made the end result much more ambiguous than it really is.  If you read Beeson's green sheet declaration, which I did a few days ago, it's a direct result of what happened and him trying to worm his way out of the situation, and you avoid the entire fact that an overwhelming worldwide population of both academics and professionals support my view of the situation, rather than Beeson's - you make it sound as if what he's doing is acceptable.

You can expect a response, in the very near future, and I'll be contacting all the same people who were interested last time to let them know just how the school publication spun it deftly in the school's favor, not allowing an unenlightened reader to be aware of the full, unbiased situation.

At the very least, you could have made more of an effort to show that I wasn't just being a troublemaker or defending my grade, but standing up for something more noble.

From:  Suzanne

To:  Me

Date:  8/24/2009 7:15am

Kyle, thanks for your response. The story was edited from 800 words to 500 at the last minute, and much of those things you mention were taken out to more focus on the copyright issue, which is the point of the story. Sorry you feel like I spun you, because my goal was to accurately portray all sides. I am not one to take sides or spin. This isn't a conspiracy, it was simply a last-minute edit. Yes, please do write a letter, we would welcome the dialogue. Again, sorry about this.

From:  Me

To:  Suzanne

Date:  8/24/2009 10:47am

Also, I just saw the print edition and checked the digital print edition - not only is the photo terribly distorted and makes me look misshapen and odd, but it's captioned with filler nonsense.

This whole affair has been one misstep after another by apparently the entire staff at the Spartan Daily, and your journalistic integrity, as well as ability, should now be highly suspect for anyone that knows me personally, knows of the issue, or even knows what I look like.

I'm embarrassed to even have provided you material for quotes, pictures, and what turned out to be otherwise cannon fodder for a shoddy publication.  If these are the behaviors that you and your brethren practice in the "real world of journalism" outside of college, then it's no wonder people stopped buying papers and advertising money has dropped drastically -no-one wants to spend money on absolute crap.

The semi-friendly rebuttal I was going to write has just turned into a scathing takedown.  I hope you and the paper are prepared to be famous for maligning a digital freedoms issue.
I'll be in touch.

From:  Suzanne

To:  Me

Date:  8/24/2009 4:05pm

Hey Kyle,

I've forwarded your emails to the executive editor and the advisers. Thank you for getting in touch with me.

Firstly, I was shocked and embarrassed myself at the caption. I didn't see it until this afternoon. There has been a firestorm around that error. It's unacceptable and we are running a correction to the caption.

We had a problem with the design of the paper and we had to do an emergency revision at 2 a.m. Unfortunately that revision meant the paper reverted to a previous version, and the words that were originally placeholder text appeared instead.

We have a brand new staff of students who came in on Sunday evening to pull together an issue, many of whom were unfamiliar with the process. This is a student-run paper, and all of us are learning. But that is no excuse, and it's a quick lesson to learn for everyone.

But as for the edits, I can only say I did as best as I could with time and space constraints. Despite the last-minute edits, I still stand by my story and believe it is an accurate portrayal of what I saw was the issue. My editors and I decided to focus on the copyright issue in the incident. The copyright issue is a bigger story, and I plan on doing a follow-up story for not just the CS program, but for other on-campus programs as well.

Re: the photo, we've also alerted the photo editor about your concerns. Is it the online photo you're concerned about, or the one in print?

Also, please write a rebuttal both online and in a letter to the editor, and we will publish it. Send the letter to me and I can forward it along.

Thanks Kyle

From:  Me

To:  Suzanne

Date:  8/24/2009 5:35pm

Both photos, although it's only noticeable in the real life edition or the "digital print edition".  Besides looking like an idiot, he didn't even use code from SJSU - he picked it from a class at Mission (clearly labeled) that was also clearly labeled as crappy just-make-it-work code.

But all will be clear when you hear from me tomorrow morning.  I'll have a full version and a shortened version that will fit the constraints of your print edition, that way I don't have to worry about your mysterious editing process screwing me over once again.

From:  Me

To:  Suzanne

Subject:  Response Letter for Printing

Date:  8/25/2009 3:20pm

In the recent "Who owns your homework?" article from 8/24/2009, I find the manner in which I was portrayed, in addition to the issue itself, appalling.  Momentarily discarding the slant of the piece that chose to vilify me as a mere troublemaker, the argument itself is a highly important, relevant issue regarding copyright and digital freedoms for both students at large and those pursuing programming-oriented degrees that was all but ignored in favor of misinformation.

The issues of a student's rights to their own homework do not arise in other disciplines, even when they typically reuse assignments as part of a portfolio or for other public displays - most especially Art students, English majors, and promising Business candidates.  But a handful of Professors within Computer Science departments worldwide seem to feel exempt from the general academic policies on undergraduate student works of creation.

Most worrisome, however, is the choice by the Daily to give the most voice and credence to the university itself while implying that the issue is still a matter of debate, with SJSU standing firmly on the side of righteousness.  This is simply not true, and supporting evidence can be easily found outside the university's propaganda machine.

Portraying this highly controversial university issue in the favor of the institution is absolutely, ethically wrong, and so is the article's factual misrepresentation of the issue at large.  No matter the financier of a journalistic endeavor, it is generally expected that some modicum of integrity is retained independent of the funding's source, and SJSU's Spartan Daily has failed to uphold this simple ideal in a horribly epic fashion.

For further details on the actual issue, as well as an analysis of the article's slant, visit kyle-brady.com/inLink/s8H0f

Kyle Brady
Student, Programmer, Writer, Entrepreneur
kyle@kyle-brady.com

Files

Original Print Edition, 8/24/2009, Bottom of Page 1

Photo Comparison

Photo Caption

Correction Print Edition, 8/25/2009, Bottom of Page 1

Correction Snippet

Expose pieces are irregular posts attempting to hold people and organizations accountable for their actions.
Kyle can be found on Twitter and MySpace, or reached via email.