What about non-protests. Like Kim Kardasian just hit a phone pole and her bloody torso is hanging out the window. Ok to get “journalists” out of the way 1) to keep horrible pics from being spread around and 2) so first responders can get in there.
You’re unlikely to hear back from her. However, the Mizzou J-School faculty is currently considering revoking her appointment.
Frankly I am disappointed that this issue, although important, is detracting from what the ConcernedStudent1950 protesters have accomplished here, and the real work yet to come.
3 Likes
And you are saying this as a seasoned protester?
1 Like
You clearly see her hit the camera. That is assault and battery. This useless academic should be fired and charged.
1 Like
I don’t think you’re thinking of the possible context of the event, either.
Which is part of the problem here. These protesters have real concerns that have plagued our country and some of our citizens for CENTURIES now and they’re being called thugs now.
Won’t someone think of the cameras!!! (and ignore the racism)
No, one of them (unfortunately the one who should know better, being a media studies educator) is engaging in thuggery by calling for “muscle” to eject a reporter who has a strong right to be there. That’s not the same thing as calling all of the protesters thugs.
1 Like
In this case they appear to have adopted the position that not only is such an ideal not reality; but it is sufficiently unreal that actions overtly hostile to the public sphere must be taken, and explicitly factionalized spaces created.
Which, in the context of ‘yes, in fact, people do seem to enjoy hanging out with their demographic peers, at least some of the time’ is not a problem. In the context of harassing journalists on the quad because apparently practicing journalism in public is ‘appropriating black space’, seems a bit more problematic.
They also seem to be veering into some epistemologically dicey areas with statements like “We truly appreciate having our story told, but this movement isn’t for you.” This both appears to be false; in that the photographer was not exactly ‘appreciated’, despite no assertion that he was there to misrepresent events; and much more deeply confused in the sense that it would seem to conflate covering a story with owning it. It’s sort of in the job description for journalists to go looking for stuff to write about, without the assumption that it becomes theirs(indeed, people who go too far into writing about themselves their their pet story tend to be either autobiographers or David Brooks, not journalists).
If he were paparazzi-ing around in the tree outside the historically-black frat trying to ‘get the inside scoop’ through their second story window and a telephoto lens I’d be markedly less sympathetic; but barring further information, that doesn’t seem to have been the case. This was an area on the quad where apparently the mere act of documentary observation was too transgressive to be permitted.
There are certainly ways to harass people while nominally engaging in ‘journalism’ or ‘protected speech’ or other highflown notions; but their objection seems to be with the fact that he had the temerity to write a story about something that ‘wasn’t for his story’. If that’s the level of approval journalists need, we might as well just shut the whole business down and move it over to PR.
5 Likes
Okay. Keep telling yourself that.
Why do you think they see the public sphere as unreal? Maybe that’s because it’s becoming nothing more than an ideology that masks various kinds of inequality.
And what about when journalists are harassing people. Where is the line there? Because it does happen and that’s okay because “free speech/first amendment”.
The way much media operates today is problematic, so it makes sense that some people might not want to let a journalist in. Again, I agree that the way this was handled might have been wrong. I don’t agree that a journalist has the right to go wherever they want, because “first amendment/free speech”. It completely ignores how the media actually functions and reinforces the problems we have with representation of people in the media.
To be clear, I’m applying that term to her actions in its classic sense: someone resorting to unnecessary main force when peaceful and constructive options to achieve her goals are available. If the university president publicly called for some “muscle” (e.g. the campus cops) against these generally peaceful protesters that would be thuggery too.
Your point about the context and the race-specific application of the term in modern America is important, so the clarification is definitely in order.
What would you call her behaviour? How is she different from a gangster or a corrupt mayor calling for “muscle” against a perceived enemy? (hint: the cause doesn’t justify it)
Good. Since Ms. Click does not understand the First Amendment, she shouldn’t be teaching subjects that depend on it.
3 Likes
I still think it’s a problematic term. Maybe use a different one. Thug implies a specific thing, and given the nature of the protest in the first place…
I don’t think it’s thuggish. out of order, perhaps. But at what point do people protesting racism get to use force to protect themselves? Ever? It has to be King’s/Rustin’s tactics all the way down, or it’s illegitimate? Everyone keeps talking about context, but I’m talking context too here. Centuries of violence aimed at black bodies, and it shows no sign of letting up. But she’s the thug? Really?
Additionally, although the reporter repeats to stop pushing him, he never seems to be afraid for his safety.
Look, I’m happy to entertain the notion that the prof acted problematically. I don’t entirely disagree. What I disagree with is the idea that this is somehow a clear cut example of a violation of the reporters free speech rights. If he feels like he was assaulted in this situation, he should go to court. But these are people protesting systemic problems who, in general, have very little political power in the system we live in. I actually kind of appreciate that this professor is using her privilege to support these protesters.
3 Likes
There’s no intentional education happening there.
Then leave the area or enter a private domicile. If the protesters are in a public space, they can be photographed and videotaped just like any other person. Cops often don’t want to be filmed, too, but they don’t have the right to stop you from filming (unless you’re under arrest, of course).
If the protesters are on property that’s owned by Disney, then Disney can have them removed. If they’re on public property, then Disney has to stick to Disneyland.
I don’t like being photographed or videotaped, and when I’m in public I try to maintain an awareness of my surroundings to prevent exactly those things. But I’m not allowed to run over to someone who captured me in a photograph or videotape and then demand that they erase said content.
Besides that, if you don’t want to be “represented” by the media (and I take that to mean included in photos/videos), and the media is photographing or videotaping a public space, then you may leave that space and remove the possibility entirely.
They can, but that doesn’t require compliance by the media.
No. See also Ben Carson and/or any other 2016 GOP Presidential Candidate.
5 Likes
If a protest happens in the forest…
1 Like
Then Professor Click should have explained the First Amendment to them. Unfortunately, she doesn’t understand it or the subject she’s supposed to be teaching.
1 Like
Not in most jurisdictions, it isn’t.
There could be related charges. For instance, destruction of property if she broke it. Or assault if she gave the operator a black eye with their own viewfinder.
