The halls of St. Louis U. High were abuzz with talk about a video circulating throughout the school this past Tuesday. Yet, the video was not of the newest Tik Tok trend or a viral video, but a news report from the news outlet KMOV that had aired on Monday’s 10 p.m. news.

The original news report that aired at 10 p.m. highlighted parents, students’, and teachers' concerns with the new mask recommended policy that the school administration had announced on Sunday. KMOV ran the article under the headline “St. Louis University High parents, students and teachers outraged after school relaxes mask mandate,” a headline that school administrators say is inaccurate and an unfair portrayal.

“They are in the news business which is the business of looking for eyes and ears, they probably did what they were trying to do,” said Assistant Principal of Mission Jim Linhares. “Our perspective would be that it is unfortunate that they are looking more for a buzz than a reflection of nuance.”

KMOV learned about the situation at SLUH after junior Elijah Oden called them and explained the situation to them, asking for a story to be done about the school's new mask recommended policy. 

“I went to KMOV because we knew that the policy wasn’t going to change just based on us students asking for it to change,” said Oden. “We felt that the only way to get them to even consider making everybody wear a mask again we were going to have to go to some real media.” 

During the segment, one parent and six students, including Oden, were interviewed, all anonymously. Additionally, an anonymous email from a SLUH teacher was included in the report. Each of the interviewees expressed their dislike for the school’s mask recommended policy, each stating their frustration and anger at the school and its policy. 

“The majority of us wanted to stay anonymous only because going up against an administration that usually is good to the students isn’t something that looks good on you in the eyes of the administration and we didn’t know if it was on the grounds for possible disciplinary action,” said Oden. 

The initial KMOV piece did not include any interviews or opinions from students who were in favor of the policy change. This seemingly one-sided reporting sparked discussion amongst students on Tuesday, many of whom felt that the article was an unfair representation of the entire student body’s feelings towards the policy. 

“I think the report had too small of a sample size of six students and I don’t think it accurately portrayed what most of the students think about the mask policy,” said sophomore Ethan Herweck. 

“The report only looked at a specific group of people and didn’t look at the larger percentage of the student population, which I thought was problematic,” said junior George Mikalas. “However, it showed well how one group of students viewed the problem and it was a good look at how one group can look at the mask policy.” 

The initial story indicated that the administration would not answer questions in regards to the school violating the mask policy, yet the article explained that Principal Ian Gibbons S.J. was unable to be reached for comment.

“They reached out to my office on Monday but I was on the way to the airport so I was unable to talk,” said Gibbons. “I have spoken to my administrative team, and none that I know of were contacted. The only attempt I know of made by KMOV to contact the administration was that one attempt and I was not available.” 

The original report left administrators and students alike feeling disappointed and frustrated. 

“I was very very disappointed in the report,” said Gibbons. “The representation that was presented in that story was very one sided and was really an unfortunate framing of the realities of what we've been doing and was not representative of our efforts to curb the pandemic at SLUH.” 

Despite some accusing KMOV of one-sided reporting in the original report, other students felt like was an excellent way to bring to light a group of students and parents who felt like their voices were not being heard by the administration. 

“I think that the report was purely subjective and did not report on the school’s feeling as a whole but it provided a great insight into the marginalized populations in SLUH,” said senior Xavier Jallow. “I felt like the story was directed for those marginalized people at SLUH and to tell their story.” 

Following the release of the original news report, KMOV’s facebook post was swarmed with critical comments both from members of the SLUH community and from St. Louis residents. Students took matters into their own hands when many either emailed the reporter or called KMOV’s newsroom, imploring that they more accurately report the story. 

“It was a blindsided attack against SLUH and I think a lot of students, alumni, teachers, and parents felt as though it was a misrepresentation of the majority opinion of the school,” said senior Ethan Steingruby. 

After receiving the outpouring of support for SLUH’s mask policy, KMOV aired another story Tuesday night, this time interviewing five anonymous students in support of the schools mask recommended policy and a named parent also in support of the policy. Also included in this report was the school’s official vaccination and transmissions rates.

“They ran story A, people are upset, then they came back with story B, people are in support. Then there is a story C, which is what I’m most interested in, which is what is happening that is newsworthy and what can we do to educate and inform the public,” said Linhares. “But that story C didn’t air in either of the KMOV stories and I wished it had.”

Even after both stories aired, administrators and students alike felt like the story did more harm than good. Many felt like instead of helping to ease tensions already found within the school, both of the stories caused tensions to flare to even greater extremes. 

“Posting things on social media, or on the news does very little other than pushing people into the corners and making people even more upset,” said Gibbons. “For me it's sad, and I wish we were better than that. A news story with the five sources that are anonymous, and are throwing very general feelings out in the public eye does very little good. I wish there was a better way to communicate these frustrations.”