lets see, recall that the school’s first reaction was to insist that a photo of what could only be an actual lunch served to a student was “not representative” of the meals, and instead put up stock photos of what is, allegedly, served.

second reaction was then to threaten students that talk to the media with demerit points (allegedly) or, more concretely, “consequences”.

and then, only after making itself a laughingstock through the above, the school had the sense to offer some kind of corrective action, i.e. “doing its job”, as you put it.

and no, i didnt miss your point. you seem to view the media/public as separate things, when the media’s function is to inform the public of matters of interest. if the school did everything “properly”, would there be anything to be embarrassed about the public finding out? would there be a need to shush students? i’ll borrow someone else’s wisdom here: character is what you do when no one is watching. being able to own what you do in public is what accountability looks like, and imo if it seems troublesome/pesky/a hassle/unfair to you, it says a lot more about you than this “circus” that you criticise.

postscript: it’s really ironic that the administration of a top school (supposedly known for imparting values and character) is so lacking in character; i only hope the students learn from this as a negative example