Students Turn Against Free Press

[johnny karate]

Wouldn't Trump find it humorous if this is how journalism got neutered.

Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I feel like the actions of a handful of students on one college campus won't make much of an impact on the state of journalism.

 

[ahhell]

Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I feel like the actions of a handful of students on one college campus won't make much of an impact on the state of journalism.

We agree on something.

 

[Brainster]

I’ve already said multiple times that I don’t think they should have texted.

Let me suggest that even ceding this much ground is a mistake. Reporters call people who are in the news all the time. The people may find it intrusive; tough titty. Texting is even less intrusive than phoning.

 

[Brainster]

True to form, the OP title was click-bait.

This has nothing at all to do with "Students Turn Against Free Press" and has everything to so with "Students Stand Up for their Privacy Rights"

The privacy rights that you have at a public protest are zilch.

 

[johnny karate]

The privacy rights that you have at a public protest are zilch.

As is the threat to freedom of the press by this incident.

 

[Ziggurat]

As is the threat to freedom of the press by this incident.

That is manifestly not true, since the Northeastern U. student paper has already been cowed into restricting itself. You might argue that the impact is limited, and might not reach beyond the student paper, but their freedom has already been impacted.

 

[johnny karate]

That is manifestly not true, since the Northeastern U. student paper has already been cowed into restricting itself. You might argue that the impact is limited, and might not reach beyond the student paper, but their freedom has already been impacted.

What specific freedom was impacted? And how was it impacted?

 

[Ziggurat]

What specific freedom was impacted? And how was it impacted?

Their freedom to take and publish pictures of public protests on campus. It was impacted by them having to take down previously published pictures, and basically promise not to do so in the future.

 

[johnny karate]

Their freedom to take and publish pictures of public protests on campus. It was impacted by them having to take down previously published pictures, and basically promise not to do so in the future.

They didn't have to do anything. They chose to.

And this was the explanation they provided for that choice:

We also wanted to explain our choice to remove the name of a protester initially quoted in our article on the protest. Any information The Daily provides about the protest can be used against the participating students — while some universities grant amnesty to student protesters, Northwestern does not. We did not want to play a role in any disciplinary action that could be taken by the University. Some students have also faced threats for being sources in articles published by other outlets. When the source in our article requested their name be removed, we chose to respect the student’s concerns for their privacy and safety. As a campus newspaper covering a student body that can be very easily and directly hurt by the University, we must operate differently than a professional publication in these circumstances.

You may disagree with what they did and why they did it, but implying that they were forced to do it is disingenuous.

 

[Belz...]

They didn't have to do anything. They chose to.

Sure thing! And if I threaten you with a good beatdown if you ever disagree with me again, I'm sure you could choose of entirely your own free will to never speak out against me in the future. Now, what freedoms would that curtail, I ask you?

 

[Ziggurat]

They didn't have to do anything. They chose to.

They did so under duress. That they could have chosen to suffer instead of cave doesn't make the problem go away. If the government fined you for, say, advocating for abortion rights, you would still consider that an infringement of your freedom of speech, even if you were capable of paying the fine.

 

[johnny karate]

Sure thing! And if I threaten you with a good beatdown if you ever disagree with me again, I'm sure you could choose of entirely your own free will to never speak out against me in the future. Now, what freedoms would that curtail, I ask you?

They did so under duress. That they could have chosen to suffer instead of cave doesn't make the problem go away. If the government fined you for, say, advocating for abortion rights, you would still consider that an infringement of your freedom of speech, even if you were capable of paying the fine.

You're both implying that there was coercion involved.

Evidence?

 

[Belz...]

You're both implying that there was coercion involved.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying that doing something that's technically of your own free will may involve coercion, in opposition to what you had said.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying that doing something that's technically of your own free will may involve coercion, in opposition to what you had said.

Yes, it might have involved coercion.

However, absent any actual evidence of that coercion, I don't find it unreasonable to take the editor at his word when he says it was a choice.

 

[xjx388]

Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I feel like the actions of a handful of students on one college campus won't make much of an impact on the state of journalism.

I might agree with you if this was the student paper at Laredo Community College. But this is Medill, a very prestigious journalism school. This is one of the training grounds for tomorrow’s prominent journalists. I would think it has a fair bit of impact.

 

[johnny karate]

I might agree with you if this was the student paper at Laredo Community College. But this is Medill, a very prestigious journalism school. This is one of the training grounds for tomorrow’s prominent journalists. I would think it has a fair bit of impact.

Please elaborate.

 

[xjx388]

Yes, it might have involved coercion.



However, absent any actual evidence of that coercion, I don't find it unreasonable to take the editor at his word when he says it was a choice.

The pressure from the student body was the reason they made this choice. They didn’t choose to stand up for journalistic principles; they chose to buckle under the pressure.

The TV station, OTOH, stood by their reportage.

Here’s a story about it.

 

[johnny karate]

The pressure from the student body was the reason they made this choice. They didn’t choose to stand up for journalistic principles; they chose to buckle under the pressure.

Not according to the editor:

We also wanted to explain our choice to remove the name of a protester initially quoted in our article on the protest. Any information The Daily provides about the protest can be used against the participating students — while some universities grant amnesty to student protesters, Northwestern does not. We did not want to play a role in any disciplinary action that could be taken by the University. Some students have also faced threats for being sources in articles published by other outlets. When the source in our article requested their name be removed, we chose to respect the student’s concerns for their privacy and safety. As a campus newspaper covering a student body that can be very easily and directly hurt by the University, we must operate differently than a professional publication in these circumstances.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[xjx388]

Not according to the editor:



Do you have evidence to the contrary?

In that article I linked to, you will find the statement of the Dean who says:


"I am deeply troubled by the vicious bullying and badgering that the students responsible for that coverage have endured for the 'sin' of doing journalism," Charles Whitaker, the dean of Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications, said in a statement on Tuesday.

So I would say that they caved to the pressure and came up with a plausible post-hoc explanation.

 

[johnny karate]

In that article I linked to, you will find the statement of the Dean who says:


"I am deeply troubled by the vicious bullying and badgering that the students responsible for that coverage have endured for the 'sin' of doing journalism," Charles Whitaker, the dean of Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications, said in a statement on Tuesday.

So I would say that they caved to the pressure and came up with a plausible post-hoc explanation.

We have conflicting statements, one by a person involved in making the decision and one by a person who was not, with no objective evidence that supports his claims.

I give more weight to the former.