Students Turn Against Free Press

[rdwight]

This is my position:

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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.

I am not saying that is not a understandable position. But it does directly conflict with what I said in that the journalists are either ignoring or condoning his messaging, in direct opposition to the purpose of their editorial.

They are the aggrieved party, the only one with first hand knowledge to directly refute or confirm, beyond any posts that were publicly view-able at anytime on social media. Yet, they are silent. I view that silence as affirming his statement, and that it remains in line with their recent editorial of protecting the student body. You view it the opposite.

Without any direct communication from the editors or journalists involved on this subject, it will be hard to bridge that gap in our views.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

As a person who has been at various times an activist, an independent journalist, and an activist journalist: if you want to call yourself an activist without inviting danger to yourself from authorities or opposition groups: stay the hell home and post to your heart's content.

 

[johnny karate]

I am not saying that is not a understandable position. But it does directly conflict with what I said in that the journalists are either ignoring or condoning his messaging, in direct opposition to the purpose of their editorial.

They are the aggrieved party, the only one with first hand knowledge to directly refute or confirm, beyond any posts that were publicly view-able at anytime on social media. Yet, they are silent. I view that silence as affirming his statement, and that it remains in line with their recent editorial of protecting the student body. You view it the opposite.

Without any direct communication from the editors or journalists involved on this subject, it will be hard to bridge that gap in our views.

Or the students do not wish to publicly contradict a faculty member.

I find that a more plausible explanation then one in which the students were the victims of felony intimidation, acquiesced to the demands of that intimidation, concocted a cover story for their actions, and then those students, the school administration, and law local enforcement all decided to do nothing about these serious crimes.

 

[johnny karate]

As a person who has been at various times an activist, an independent journalist, and an activist journalist: if you want to call yourself an activist without inviting danger to yourself from authorities or opposition groups: stay the hell home and post to your heart's content.

I would argue that we live in unusual times in which that danger is more potent.

 

[xjx388]

What means? Please be specific.



I read it. Nowhere does it say they were pressured to take down the photos.

So what do you think happened? They just spontaneously decided to take down the photos apropos of nothing?

Or maybe their fellow students expressed anger about the photos, refused to cooperate with them, bullied and badgered them...unless, of course you are calling the Dean a liar or something...

 

[Graham2001]

Commentary from Jerry Coyne, author of 'Why Evolution is True', he's quoting a New York Times article I cannot read because it's behind a paywall.


https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...journalism-fracas-reaches-the-new-york-times/

 

[johnny karate]

So what do you think happened? They just spontaneously decided to take down the photos apropos of nothing?

The editor-in-chief pretty clearly explained the reasoning behind their decision in his editorial. I see no reason to doubt that account.

Or maybe their fellow students expressed anger about the photos

Yes, that appears to have happened.

refused to cooperate with them

And that too.

bullied and badgered them...

If you bully or badger someone in order to coerce them into doing something, that's illegal intimidation. I challenge the claim that this took place.

unless, of course you are calling the Dean a liar or something...

I'm saying there is no evidence that corroborates Whitaker's claim that the student journalists were threatened with physical harm. Because there isn't.

 

[Joe Random]

You know, reading this line :

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.

Sounds like some people just aren't cut out for the whole 'adult' thing.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I would argue that we live in unusual times in which that danger is more potent.

I've seen injuries, in one case ultimately lethal, at less than 50 paces distance.

I maintain that if someone can't stomach being photographed, I prefer they stay home.

 

[carlitos]

I find that a more plausible explanation then one in which the students were the victims of felony intimidation, acquiesced to the demands of that intimidation, concocted a cover story for their actions, and then those students, the school administration, and law local enforcement all decided to do nothing about these serious crimes.

Would you care to dial back the hyperbole or are you comfortable with this claim as it stands?

 

[xjx388]

If you bully or badger someone in order to coerce them into doing something, that's illegal intimidation. I challenge the claim that this took place.

Even if it's illegal, it would take the journalists reporting it and they clearly aren't going to do that. The intimidation worked; they were cowed into apologizing for doing journalism and agreed to not do so much journalism in the future. So the fact that they aren't pursuing intimidation charges doesn't tell us anything about whether or not intimidation happened.

I'm saying there is no evidence that corroborates Whitaker's claim that the student journalists were threatened with physical harm. Because there isn't.

We don't have access to all the evidence. He's in a better position than we are to see it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I'll add to my thoughts above and say stay home to journalists not ready to handle it, either.

Because I've known a few who spent the night in jail and had to start over in terms of equipment to do their work. The state has way more intimidation potential, so those who cave so easily will likely end up becoming compliant propagandists anyways.

 

[johnny karate]

Someone in this thread literally claimed intimidation took place, and that is a felony in Illinois.

 

[johnny karate]

Even if it's illegal, it would take the journalists reporting it and they clearly aren't going to do that. The intimidation worked; they were cowed into apologizing for doing journalism and agreed to not do so much journalism in the future. So the fact that they aren't pursuing intimidation charges doesn't tell us anything about whether or not intimidation happened.

We don't have access to all the evidence. He's in a better position than we are to see it.

You're willing to accept these claims without evidence. That is your prerogative.

I am not.

 

[johnny karate]

I've seen injuries, in one case ultimately lethal, at less than 50 paces distance.

I maintain that if someone can't stomach being photographed, I prefer they stay home.

I'm not talking about in-the-moment injuries or an aversion to being photographed.

I'm talking about an administration that openly condones and encourages violence against protesters, and followers willing to carry out that violence with cult-like loyalty.

If you're a 19 year-old kid protesting a former member of the Trump adminstration, and you see things like this happening, the idea if having your identity made public so that one of these psychos could track you down might scare you too.

 

[mgidm86]

You know, reading this line :



Sounds like some people just aren't cut out for the whole 'adult' thing.

 

[Belz...]

Someone in this thread literally claimed intimidation took place, and that is a felony in Illinois.

Is it possible, perhaps, that they meant intimidation in a way that doesn't quite match the legal definition, Johnny?

 

[johnny karate]

Is it possible, perhaps, that they meant intimidation in a way that doesn't quite match the legal definition, Johnny?

Please explain what legal intimidation would look like.

 

[Belz...]

Please explain what legal intimidation would look like.

First, how about you make the effort to tell me you understand the distinction. In fact, if you do that, you'll already be able to find your own examples.

 

[johnny karate]

First, how about you make the effort to tell me you understand the distinction. In fact, if you do that, you'll already be able to find your own examples.

Intimidation is expressly against the law. If you are claiming that there is such a thing as legal intimidation, it's up to you to prove it. I won't do your work for you.