Students Turn Against Free Press

jeremyp said:
Dispute that there was a lot of hate and intimidation directed at the editors of the paper if you like - we only have the word of the Dean of Journalism for it at this point - but don't insult our intelligence with spurious crap about metaphors.
Click to expand...

Wait, wait. Did you mean that JK actually defecated in the thread?
 
jeremyp said:
I think your objection to the point is disingenuous (unless, see previous point that maybe English is not your first language). Dispute that there was a lot of hate and intimidation directed at the editors of the paper if you like - we only have the word of the Dean of Journalism for it at this point - but don't insult our intelligence with spurious crap about metaphors.
Click to expand...

Second language or not, his English skills are good enough that this is certainly a disingenuous argument.

Hyperbole is not always a problem, but it can be. If the hyperbolic statement is universally understood to be hyperbole, then it doesn't cause problems. But if the hyperbolic statement can be confused for being non-hyperbolic, that's where the problems arise. So for example, saying Trump is Hitler as hyperbole can be a problem because some people try to describe him that way in earnest. In that case, some listeners may incorrectly interpret the description as serious, and that potential for misinterpretation is a problem.

But "tsunami of X", especially when X isn't even a physical thing, is pretty universally understood as hyperbole. Nobody fluent in conversational English will misinterpret it as anything else. So its use isn't a problem. As you point out, there's still the potential for disagreement about how much X there is, and the hyperbole still indicates that the speaker thinks there's a lot of X (which may or may not be correct), but that's a potential disagreement about the facts, not about the meaning of the statement.
 
Ziggurat said:
Second language or not, his English skills are good enough that this is certainly a disingenuous argument.

Hyperbole is not always a problem, but it can be. If the hyperbolic statement is universally understood to be hyperbole, then it doesn't cause problems. But if the hyperbolic statement can be confused for being non-hyperbolic, that's where the problems arise. So for example, saying Trump is Hitler as hyperbole can be a problem because some people try to describe him that way in earnest. In that case, some listeners may incorrectly interpret the description as serious, and that potential for misinterpretation is a problem.

But "tsunami of X", especially when X isn't even a physical thing, is pretty universally understood as hyperbole. Nobody fluent in conversational English will misinterpret it as anything else. So its use isn't a problem. As you point out, there's still the potential for disagreement about how much X there is, and the hyperbole still indicates that the speaker thinks there's a lot of X (which may or may not be correct), but that's a potential disagreement about the facts, not about the meaning of the statement.
Click to expand...

Not to mention his prodigious leap to the conclusion that intimidation implies felonious conduct. Only if the intimidation involves violence or the threats of violence.
 
My interest is in the acts of criminality that are being alleged, specifically intimidation.

Intimidation is a felony in Illinois. I cited the law upthread. Since apparently none of you bothered to read the text of the law, here is it is:

12-6.  Intimidation.

(a) A person commits intimidation when, with intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without lawful authority any of the following acts:

(1) Inflict physical harm on the person threatened or any other person or on property;  or

(2) Subject any person to physical confinement or restraint;  or

(3) Commit a felony or Class A misdemeanor;  or

(4) Accuse any person of an offense;  or

(5) Expose any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;  or

(6) Take action as a public official against anyone or anything, or withhold official action, or cause such action or withholding;  or

(7) Bring about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action.

(b) Sentence.

Intimidation is a Class 3 felony for which an offender may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years and not more than 10 years.
Click to expand...

Whitaker and a lot of you in thread have implied or outright claimed that the behavior directed towards the student journalists was criminal as defined by this law.

Here are some of those claims:
Belz... said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

trustbutverify said:
Yes, I'm sure the tsunami of hate and intimidation had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

I'm challenging these claims.

I contend that absent any evidence, no criminal behavior took place. If no criminal behavior took place, I would like a reasonable explanation as to the nature of the duress or coercion to which the student journalists were subjected. Absent that explanation, I contend that the student journalists made the decision to remove the name of one of the protesters from the article of their own volition and for the reasons laid out in their editorial.

Any responses that attack me or otherwise fail to address this fairly straightforward argument will be ignored.
 
johnny karate said:
Which is why I asked you if you wanted to dial back the hyperbole or stick with the claim as it is.
Click to expand...
You mean the claim that was never made, and for which no rational person would ever consider to have been made?

Tsunamis aside, do you maintain that crimes were committed?
Click to expand...
I maintain the newspaper staff were subjected to a tsunami of hate and intimidation.
 
Forgive me if already posted

Seems like the whole establishment is made up of snowflakes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...western-we-shouldnt-apologize-doing-our-jobs/

I write for the Daily Northwestern. We shouldn’t apologize for doing our jobs.

The staff of the Daily Northwestern, the student newspaper I write for as an opinion columnist, is incredibly dedicated to its work. Students skip classes and meals to spend countless hours in the newsroom, documenting events and informing readers. But this week, they apologized for practicing journalism at all.

At first, the events seemed ordinary enough — just a typical week on campus. The College Republicans invited former attorney general Jeff Sessions to speak at an event on Nov. 5. As anyone would have expected, a group of students held a counter-event, “Night of Action at Northwestern University,” holding up signs and chanting slogans. Meanwhile, another group of students, organized through a private Facebook event, aimed to stop Sessions from speaking altogether. After his speech began, they attempted to break into the lecture hall but were stopped by police officers. They banged on doors and yelled obscenities, trying to shout him down.

Knowing that our readers would take an interest in these goings-on, the Daily sent two reporters, one to cover the talk and one the protest, as well as a photographer. They asked for interviews, took photographs and jotted down quotes. They provided live coverage that night via Twitter, and the story ran the next day.

Then, the responses poured in. On social media, some students expressed anger that their pictures were taken and that the Daily’s reporters seemed to feel entitled to a story. They felt that reporters hadn’t considered their safety, and that the Daily disrespected them as student activists. Some of those students contacted staff members to voice their fury. (Those images have since been removed.) Soon after the event, the Daily’s reporters noticed that Northwestern students no longer wanted to talk to them on the record, citing distrust of the publication.

I only learned about this backlash when the editor in chief called a mandatory staff meeting on Nov. 10. Its purpose was for us to discuss how we could do better in the future and avoid harming marginalized groups when reporting. The consensus was that the paper messed up, not in covering the event itself, but in the way we covered it: posting photos of protesters without their permission, finding their phone numbers and asking them to speak to us about an event they found traumatic.

Staffers thought that the protesters had legitimate concerns about being disciplined by the university, and the Daily should protect the protesters from punitive measures. Various staffers also described Sessions’s appearance on campus as traumatizing, suggesting that, during such events, it’s best not to act as a reporter but as a fellow student, making sure the traumatized are okay. We are all student reporters, and the backlash from the student community took a personal tone. It was so strong that Daily reporters questioned their own work, wondering if the paper should have contacted protesters beforehand, asking what would and would not be acceptable to cover. The editors informed us that they would write an apology to the student body.


On Nov. 11, the Daily’s editorial staff published that statement, which said, “We recognize that we contributed to the harm students experienced.” The editors specifically apologized for photo coverage that made other students feel unsafe, and for using the university directory to find students’ phone numbers and text them with interview requests, adding that “being contacted like this is an invasion of privacy.”

At first, the responses to the statement were local, coming mostly from other students or people in Illinois, but as the day progressed, journalists from seemingly every major publication in the country commented on the Daily’s apology. Our editor in chief, Troy Closson, posted a thread on Twitter addressing the response on social media. That evening, with the tweetstorm in full force, I walked into the newsroom to bring in my column for the week. The newsroom was mostly empty. People there were visibly shaken, trying to distract themselves and de-stress with episodes of “Real Housewives” and “Love Island.” An editor called an impromptu meeting, emphasizing that the Daily would stick by its statement and that we should not attract any further media attention. Furthermore, the Daily would not publish anything related to the controversy: no news articles, no opinion pieces and no letters to the editor.

That night, staffers talked about how the “old media” is dead, and that because most of the notable critics of the statement write for legacy print publications, the Daily must be doing something right. What I’m sure they meant is that the new era of journalism should account for the perspectives of people whose voices haven’t been heard in the past, and that reporters should be more sensitive to their subjects. These are admirable goals.

What isn’t admirable is acquiescence. The Daily apologized for standard journalistic practices. Taking photos of a public event and using the university directory to look up the people involved are actions every reputable news outlet would consider aboveboard — necessary, even, to the basic project of reporting. Finding out the truth is inherently intrusive and invasive. No reporter has ever broken a major story without stepping on toes. If journalists are restricted by the need to ensure that subjects are completely happy with the coverage, they can’t do their jobs.

The opposition to normal reporting practices isn’t limited to our campus: It seems to be gaining traction with many of my peers. Recently, the Harvard Undergraduate Council voted to express solidarity with a group boycotting the Harvard Crimson because its reporters asked for comment from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement when writing about a protest calling for the agency’s abolition. There, too, students considered standard journalistic practices morally unacceptable and now refuse to grant interviews to the paper.

The Daily’s editorial staff puts blood, sweat and tears into the newspaper. It was in a tough situation that the online outcry made tougher. Facing a torrent of anger from fellow students, the staff felt that it had to atone. But reporters shouldn’t defer decisions about what can and cannot be published to their subjects. Editors shouldn’t back down when challenged by the mob. And my generation of journalists shouldn’t assume that we know what’s right just because we’re the next wave.

Reporting can be difficult, especially when the subject doesn’t want to be covered. It’s uncomfortable to feel like you’re encroaching on someone’s space in pursuit of a story. It’s not fun to have doors slammed in your face or be hung up on. Finding out the truth intrinsically involves conflict. If readers, writers and editors can’t tolerate that conflict, we’re in trouble.
Click to expand...
 
johnny karate said:
This statement is in line with the editor's version of events.

No mention of duress, coercion, or the physical threats alleged by Whitaker.
Click to expand...

So your position is the dean of the college made an outlandish, unsupported claim. And that the student paper he is referencing is not only ignoring this statement, but complacent in it's representation of the student body they just apologized for not protecting adequately.
 
johnny karate said:
It's literally the name of the crime.



But go head and describe how legal intimidation works.
Click to expand...



No one but you is talking about crimes committed against the journalists. Not sure why you are hung up on one particular use of the word in the criminal code. Language is a wee bit more robust than that. Intimidation can just be pressure applied by various means to get someone to do what is desired.

Read the link cullenz provided and you will see one of the journalists’ perspective on the outside pressures brought to bear on the paper in order to get them to take down photos and such.
 
rdwight said:
So your position is the dean of the college made an outlandish, unsupported claim. And that the student paper he is referencing is not only ignoring this statement, but complacent in it's representation of the student body they just apologized for not protecting adequately.
Click to expand...


This is my position:
johnny karate said:
I contend that absent any evidence, no criminal behavior took place. If no criminal behavior took place, I would like a reasonable explanation as to the nature of the duress or coercion to which the student journalists were subjected. Absent that explanation, I contend that the student journalists made the decision to remove the name of one of the protesters from the article of their own volition and for the reasons laid out in their editorial.
Click to expand...
 
xjx388 said:
No one but you is talking about crimes committed against the journalists. Not sure why you are hung up on one particular use of the word in the criminal code. Language is a wee bit more robust than that. Intimidation can just be pressure applied by various means to get someone to do what is desired.
Click to expand...

What means? Please be specific.

Read the link cullenz provided and you will see one of the journalists’ perspective on the outside pressures brought to bear on the paper in order to get them to take down photos and such.
Click to expand...

I read it. Nowhere does it say they were pressured to take down the photos.
 
Last edited:
Leftus said:
You can either agree with me, or I will organize a boycott against you and anyone who advertises with you.
Click to expand...

Completely illegal as very clearly stated in the text of law I've cited multiple times in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom