ConcernedStudent1950 ("CS1950") vs the Media

flimbro said:

terp said:

flimbro said:
@ terp

...That new president will be asked to schedule regular meetings with student groups and to instruct his staff to respond to each and every complaint with action when necessary and punitive measures when required. White students who are currently operating under the impression that celebrating their first amendment freedoms involves creative writing in siht will be discouraged and told that any continued freelance graphic work may result in expulsion or loss of scholarship.
That's a start right?

I don't really know if it's a start.  Perhaps its a start if things like writing in siht was actually encouraged under the prior President.  *shrugs*

The point is that this president, like any other head of any other thing, was paid to respond and control and manage.  In another time the college president would actually be paid to foster a positive academic environment as well- this guy wasn't hired to do that and to his detriment didn't possess the 'heart', the political smarts or intellectual wherewithal to know that he should respond forcefully and decisively to these students. In that sense he did encourage the swastika.  The next guy hired to increase profits will make other mistakes, but he won't make these same mistakes and in America that is progress.

My arm is tired and this horse has no pulse.

Kudos.  I've seen some leaps of logic.  But that, my friend, is impressive!

flimbro said:

hoops said:

yellowgato said:
An interesting segway on this discussion involves that student-photog.  Somewhat ironically, he actually covered the Ferguson protests and won a few awards for his pictorials.  If anything his pictures really showed the human/painful side of the issues in that part of the country.
http://journalism.missouri.edu/2015/06/photojournalism-student-tim-tai-wins-2-awards-in-national-hearst-championship/  
http://timtaiphoto.com/fergusons-son/ 

He's really good, and I think he was trying to convey that he was supporting the protesters, but that got lost in the moment.

He's very good. But he's not a photo journalist- yet. His mistake was allowing the students to make him the story. He got in the way and lost his head just like the students lost theirs. If he was a working journalist he would have had his head handed to him for not getting the shot, but providing it for the competition. 
If he's simply a creative freelancer looking to capture moments like those he captured in Ferguson than he has to learn to get his priorities straight and move without impeding or interfering with the story he's supposed to be covering. 
The students are allowed to be emotional- as a potential professional, he isn't. Better to move to where they ask you to go immediately. Wait five minutes and then head right back in and get your shot. Repeat as needed.

Point of order- he doesn't have to be a photo journalist. Any person in a public place can take picture of whatever they like. They don't need to have some sort of sanction putting them into a special clergy of people who have "super" first amendment rights, with greater power than all other citizens.

So no matter what he was going to do with those pictures, the people who muscled him out had zero right to do so. Period, end of story. 

Don't like people taking a picture of what you're doing? Then either stop doing it or go somewhere private.

no first amendment right is uninfringeable.  i can’t assemble in the middle of Maplewood Avenue without getting a permit because certain government interests (public safety) have been held to be a reasonable restriction on that right.   the press, similarly, can be restricted.  police can restrict reporters from a fire or crime scene because they might get hurt, get in the way of first responders, etc. 

here, there were students telling this photographer to get out of the way of their demonstration.  the government wasn’t telling him to go away, students were.  and one could argue that his continued presence there, ignoring their wishes, agitating them, was creating a disturbance, and possibly a safety hazard and it wouldn’t have been unreasonable for campus police to ask him to step aside and allow the protest to happen while he took pictures from a reasonable distance away.

constitutional protections are protections from government intrusion on your rights.  i can tell you to shut up and that’s not a violation of your freedom of speech.  those students telling that photographer to get the camera out of their faces were not violating the freedom of the press. 

he could have walked 15 feet away and taken pictures instead of getting into a pissing match, arguing bad constitutional law, and acting like ‘Freedom of the Press’ means you can do whatever the hell you want because “it’s my right”.

I will not condone the actions of the protesters. I think they were inappropriately hostile, particularly given tat the photog was just trying to get some good shots. That said, I thought one of the first rules of journalism was "don't  become the story."

holymoly said:
no first amendment right is uninfringeable.  i can’t assemble in the middle of Maplewood Avenue without getting a permit because certain government interests (public safety) have been held to be a reasonable restriction on that right.   the press, similarly, can be restricted.  police can restrict reporters from a fire or crime scene because they might get hurt, get in the way of first responders, etc. 
here, there were students telling this photographer to get out of the way of their demonstration.  the government wasn’t telling him to go away, students were.  and one could argue that his continued presence there, ignoring their wishes, agitating them, was creating a disturbance, and possibly a safety hazard and it wouldn’t have been unreasonable for campus police to ask him to step aside and allow the protest to happen while he took pictures from a reasonable distance away.
constitutional protections are protections from government intrusion on your rights.  i can tell you to shut up and that’s not a violation of your freedom of speech.  those students telling that photographer to get the camera out of their faces were not violating the freedom of the press. 
he could have walked 15 feet away and taken pictures instead of getting into a pissing match, arguing bad constitutional law, and acting like ‘Freedom of the Press’ means you can do whatever the hell you want because “it’s my right”.

Them telling the photographer to get his camera out of their faces was certainly not any violation.  Aligning shoulder to shoulder to block him and then walking forward strikes me as a physical violation with purpose.  They did this all the time verbally claiming that they had a right to walk straight ahead.  Which of course they do.  But that's not really what they were doing. 

ParticleMan said:
I will not condone the actions of the protesters. I think they were inappropriately hostile, particularly given tat the photog was just trying to get some good shots. That said, I thought one of the first rules of journalism was "don't  become the story."

I see no indication that he was trying to become the story. 

Jackson_Fusion said:

flimbro said:

hoops said:

yellowgato said:
An interesting segway on this discussion involves that student-photog.  Somewhat ironically, he actually covered the Ferguson protests and won a few awards for his pictorials.  If anything his pictures really showed the human/painful side of the issues in that part of the country.
http://journalism.missouri.edu/2015/06/photojournalism-student-tim-tai-wins-2-awards-in-national-hearst-championship/  
http://timtaiphoto.com/fergusons-son/ 

He's really good, and I think he was trying to convey that he was supporting the protesters, but that got lost in the moment.

He's very good. But he's not a photo journalist- yet. His mistake was allowing the students to make him the story. He got in the way and lost his head just like the students lost theirs. If he was a working journalist he would have had his head handed to him for not getting the shot, but providing it for the competition. 
If he's simply a creative freelancer looking to capture moments like those he captured in Ferguson than he has to learn to get his priorities straight and move without impeding or interfering with the story he's supposed to be covering. 
The students are allowed to be emotional- as a potential professional, he isn't. Better to move to where they ask you to go immediately. Wait five minutes and then head right back in and get your shot. Repeat as needed.

Point of order- he doesn't have to be a photo journalist. Any person in a public place can take picture of whatever they like. They don't need to have some sort of sanction putting them into a special clergy of people who have "super" first amendment rights, with greater power than all other citizens.
So no matter what he was going to do with those pictures, the people who muscled him out had zero right to do so. Period, end of story. 

Don't like people taking a picture of what you're doing? Then either stop doing it or go somewhere private.

It's 1:40 you have an hour and a couple minutes. Put on your raincoat and pick an elementary or middle school in town. Now go stand outside the front door on the sidewalk and take pictures of the kids as they leave today. When the cops show up tell them it's your right. 

See how long that lasts.

To clarify I didn't say he needed to be a photojournalist to photograph the event. I said he made a mistake and allowed his presence to become the story.  He identified himself as someone doing 'his job' for a 'national newspaper' which suggests that he considers himself a professional to some degree. My point, which I won't make again is that he misread the environment and as a result missed getting the shot.

We're not in disagreement- he had a right to be there. He handled the situation poorly. 

It's really not that big a deal- all of this is tertiary to the issue. 

terp said:

ParticleMan said:
I will not condone the actions of the protesters. I think they were inappropriately hostile, particularly given tat the photog was just trying to get some good shots. That said, I thought one of the first rules of journalism was "don't  become the story."

I see no indication that he was trying to become the story. 

I don't mean that he was TRYING to become the story. But the couple of reporters that I know always go out of their way to be observers only. He was not interviewing these people. He was arguing with them. Of course he had the right to be there, but he chose to argue instead.

holymoly said:
no first amendment right is uninfringeable.  i can’t assemble in the middle of Maplewood Avenue without getting a permit because certain government interests (public safety) have been held to be a reasonable restriction on that right.   the press, similarly, can be restricted.  police can restrict reporters from a fire or crime scene because they might get hurt, get in the way of first responders, etc. 
here, there were students telling this photographer to get out of the way of their demonstration.  the government wasn’t telling him to go away, students were.  and one could argue that his continued presence there, ignoring their wishes, agitating them, was creating a disturbance, and possibly a safety hazard and it wouldn’t have been unreasonable for campus police to ask him to step aside and allow the protest to happen while he took pictures from a reasonable distance away.
constitutional protections are protections from government intrusion on your rights.  i can tell you to shut up and that’s not a violation of your freedom of speech.  those students telling that photographer to get the camera out of their faces were not violating the freedom of the press. 
he could have walked 15 feet away and taken pictures instead of getting into a pissing match, arguing bad constitutional law, and acting like ‘Freedom of the Press’ means you can do whatever the hell you want because “it’s my right”.

Nonsense on stilts. 

Your argument boils down to "if your presense upsets someone in a public place and they get physical with you, it's your fault, you shouldn't have upset them". That's a license for anyone to do anything they want to anyone, any time, for any reason. 

I mean, really- if you threaten to assault me, I'm creating a safety hazard?? 1984 wasn't intended as a "how to" book.

flimbro said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

flimbro said:

hoops said:

yellowgato said:
An interesting segway on this discussion involves that student-photog.  Somewhat ironically, he actually covered the Ferguson protests and won a few awards for his pictorials.  If anything his pictures really showed the human/painful side of the issues in that part of the country.
http://journalism.missouri.edu/2015/06/photojournalism-student-tim-tai-wins-2-awards-in-national-hearst-championship/  
http://timtaiphoto.com/fergusons-son/ 

He's really good, and I think he was trying to convey that he was supporting the protesters, but that got lost in the moment.

He's very good. But he's not a photo journalist- yet. His mistake was allowing the students to make him the story. He got in the way and lost his head just like the students lost theirs. If he was a working journalist he would have had his head handed to him for not getting the shot, but providing it for the competition. 
If he's simply a creative freelancer looking to capture moments like those he captured in Ferguson than he has to learn to get his priorities straight and move without impeding or interfering with the story he's supposed to be covering. 
The students are allowed to be emotional- as a potential professional, he isn't. Better to move to where they ask you to go immediately. Wait five minutes and then head right back in and get your shot. Repeat as needed.

Point of order- he doesn't have to be a photo journalist. Any person in a public place can take picture of whatever they like. They don't need to have some sort of sanction putting them into a special clergy of people who have "super" first amendment rights, with greater power than all other citizens.
So no matter what he was going to do with those pictures, the people who muscled him out had zero right to do so. Period, end of story. 

Don't like people taking a picture of what you're doing? Then either stop doing it or go somewhere private.

It's 1:40 you have an hour and a couple minutes. Put on your raincoat and pick an elementary or middle school school in town. Now go stand outside the front door on the sidewalk and take pictures of the kids as they leave today. When the cops show up tell them it's your right. 
See how long that lasts.


To clarify I didn't say he needed to be a photojournalist to photograph the event. I said he made a mistake and allowed his presence to become the story.  He identified himself as someone doing 'his job' for a 'national newspaper' which suggests that he considers himself a professional to some degree. My point, which I won't make again is that he misread the environment and as a result missed getting the shot.
We're not in disagreement- he had a right to be there. He handled the situation poorly. 
It's really not that big a deal- all of this is tertiary to the issue. 

You're choosing the creepiest imaginable scenario to make an equivalency- but guess what? The ONLY place where it is illegal to take pictures of public property is specifically designated military and nuclear properties and areas of public property where there is an expectation of privacy, like the public bathroom at a national park. That is it.

HE did not try to become the story. The only way he could have avoided being involved is if he immediately gave in to their intimidation. So again- it's his fault. He shouldn't have upset them. He shouldn't have said the things he said. He should have just shut up and obeyed. 

Is that right?

Jackson_Fusion said:

holymoly said:
no first amendment right is uninfringeable.  i can’t assemble in the middle of Maplewood Avenue without getting a permit because certain government interests (public safety) have been held to be a reasonable restriction on that right.   the press, similarly, can be restricted.  police can restrict reporters from a fire or crime scene because they might get hurt, get in the way of first responders, etc. 
here, there were students telling this photographer to get out of the way of their demonstration.  the government wasn’t telling him to go away, students were.  and one could argue that his continued presence there, ignoring their wishes, agitating them, was creating a disturbance, and possibly a safety hazard and it wouldn’t have been unreasonable for campus police to ask him to step aside and allow the protest to happen while he took pictures from a reasonable distance away.
constitutional protections are protections from government intrusion on your rights.  i can tell you to shut up and that’s not a violation of your freedom of speech.  those students telling that photographer to get the camera out of their faces were not violating the freedom of the press. 
he could have walked 15 feet away and taken pictures instead of getting into a pissing match, arguing bad constitutional law, and acting like ‘Freedom of the Press’ means you can do whatever the hell you want because “it’s my right”.

Nonsense on stilts. 
Your argument boils down to "if your presense upsets someone in a public place and they get physical with you, it's your fault, you shouldn't have upset them". That's a license for anyone to do anything they want to anyone, any time, for any reason. 

I mean, really- if you threaten to assault me, I'm creating a safety hazard?? 1984 wasn't intended as a "how to" book.

that's not at all what i said or meant.  the first amendment rights of the photographer has been mentioned in this thread and in links on this thread - and i believe alluded to by the photographer in the video.  i was merely pointing out that government action is what is constrained by the first amendment, and first amendment rights are not absolute with no restriction.

there's no way i meant "if your presence upsets someone in a public place...it's your fault".  i'm not talking about the personal liability of the protestors or the photographer.  i'm talking about the constitution - which, flimbro mentioned, is probably tertiary to this conversation.   i just have a 'thing' about people going on about first amendment rights violations when none have occured.  i don't think you needed to so obviously misrepresent what i wrote and meant.  but hey, i can't stop you. 

holymoly said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

holymoly said:
no first amendment right is uninfringeable.  i can’t assemble in the middle of Maplewood Avenue without getting a permit because certain government interests (public safety) have been held to be a reasonable restriction on that right.   the press, similarly, can be restricted.  police can restrict reporters from a fire or crime scene because they might get hurt, get in the way of first responders, etc. 
here, there were students telling this photographer to get out of the way of their demonstration.  the government wasn’t telling him to go away, students were.  and one could argue that his continued presence there, ignoring their wishes, agitating them, was creating a disturbance, and possibly a safety hazard and it wouldn’t have been unreasonable for campus police to ask him to step aside and allow the protest to happen while he took pictures from a reasonable distance away.
constitutional protections are protections from government intrusion on your rights.  i can tell you to shut up and that’s not a violation of your freedom of speech.  those students telling that photographer to get the camera out of their faces were not violating the freedom of the press. 
he could have walked 15 feet away and taken pictures instead of getting into a pissing match, arguing bad constitutional law, and acting like ‘Freedom of the Press’ means you can do whatever the hell you want because “it’s my right”.

Nonsense on stilts. 
Your argument boils down to "if your presense upsets someone in a public place and they get physical with you, it's your fault, you shouldn't have upset them". That's a license for anyone to do anything they want to anyone, any time, for any reason. 

I mean, really- if you threaten to assault me, I'm creating a safety hazard?? 1984 wasn't intended as a "how to" book.

that's not at all what i said or meant.  the first amendment rights of the photographer has been mentioned in this thread and in links on this thread - and i believe alluded to by the photographer in the video.  i was merely pointing out that government action is what is constrained by the first amendment, and first amendment rights are not absolute with no restriction.
there's no way i meant "if your presence upsets someone in a public place...it's your fault".  i'm not talking about the personal liability of the protestors or the photographer.  i'm talking about the constitution - which, flimbro mentioned, is probably tertiary to this conversation.   i just have a 'thing' about people going on about first amendment rights violations when none have occured.  i don't think you needed to so obviously misrepresent what i wrote and meant.  but hey, i can't stop you. 

You said he could have walked 15 feet "instead of getting in a pissing match" and (maybe) avoided a problem. 

Putting aside that walking 15 feet wouldn't do anything to stop the threats and coercion, your observation boils down to him sharing blame because he didn't immediately cease a lawful, peaceful activity at the threat of violence.

I understand your point about the 1st amendment. It's not accurate. I didn't address it but I suppose I must. 

The 1st amendment absolutely applies, because the government, through the law, has an obligation to protect the rights of citizens who are being violated by ANYONE for exercising those rights, not just government agents. Criticizing someone for their speech is not illegal. Criticizing someone for their behavior is not illegal. Using physical coercion to force compliance is. 

To crystallize that for you- a despotic government isn't permitted to ignore violations of the law that target political enemies by citizens who don't hold government employment. If a group of people showed up and attacked the protestors, the government can't simply ignore it because they see the protestors to be from an unfavored group. 

Therefore, the government cannot discriminate in who they protect and who they don't. Otherwise the government could say, "I don't like what you said, and I can't punish you for it. But this guy that voted for me that drives a bus? He can, and I'm not going to do anything about it."

Herding someone physically is coercion. Threatening someone by summoning "muscle" is coercion. Will there be charges? I doubt it- no injuries probably gets everyone a pass. But the principles are the same regardless.

I think the word you are looking for is assault. 

flimbro said:

We're not in disagreement- he had a right to be there. He handled the situation poorly. 

It's really not that big a deal- all of this is tertiary to the issue. 

While they object to your second sentence above, and digest your third, readers might be interested in the tweets, including these two, of someone who sounds like he'd agree with you on both counts:

https://mobile.twitter.com/nonorganical/status/663929578583228416

https://mobile.twitter.com/nonorganical/status/663962685768253440

He also apparently had a constructive private conversation with Terrell Jermaine Starr, the author of one of the pieces that @mantram linked to.

And ... thanks.

Thought this was good:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/opinion/mizzou-yale-and-free-speech.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=MostPopularFB&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

Jackson_Fusion said:

HE did not try to become the story. The only way he could have avoided being involved is if he immediately gave in to their intimidation. So again- it's his fault. He shouldn't have upset them. He shouldn't have said the things he said. He should have just shut up and obeyed. 

Is that right?

Yep- absolutely. 

The photographer was there in a 'professional' capacity. He suggested as much when he attempted to explain himself to the protestors. He stood in place and watched as the protestors walked toward him with the intention of moving him and other members of the 'media' back to establish a perimeter. Instead of moving and avoiding confrontation he stayed in their path and provided an impediment. That's when he stopped being an observer and became part of the story. He could have walked away at any point during the confrontation but he didn't, he lost focus and chose to stay and debate the first amendment instead of moving off to accomplish his task. 

DaveSchmidt said:

flimbro said:

We're not in disagreement- he had a right to be there. He handled the situation poorly. 

It's really not that big a deal- all of this is tertiary to the issue. 

While they object to your second sentence above, and digest your third, readers might be interested in the tweets, including these two, of someone who sounds like he'd agree with you on both counts:
https://mobile.twitter.com/nonorganical/status/663929578583228416

https://mobile.twitter.com/nonorganical/status/663962685768253440

He also apparently had a constructive private conversation with Terrell Jermaine Starr, the author of one of the pieces that @mantram linked to.
And ... thanks.

(you're welcome Dave)

Read his tweets. He's a sensible, articulate young man who agrees with the protestors. He'll be beneficial to their cause.

I suspect you may be anxious to find any fault with the protestors. Well, you're right and we agree- in this case they were wrong. However, I think they were wrong because they made a strategic error in shutting the press out. Smarter more experienced activists would have invited them in- provided a place for them to gather, produced their spokesmen and then fed them the information they'd like disseminated. 

(An aside: I thought the visual of Black, white and brown students with their arms locked and walking in unison was magnificent)

I do understand why they weren't capable of working with that precision on Monday. They were elated and excited about showing a united front. They were also afraid and anxious to be protected and to feel 'safe'. That is, after all, what much of this is about. Some folks here poke fun at them for this, but the hard truth you have to come around to is that they were right, they weren't 'safe'.  Not by a long shot. Death threats started that night and continue to come in through today. 

Demanding the right to be safe and to feel protected can easily be spun into being 'oversensitive', but how many of us would be able to sleep soundly if the police never responded to calls about dark figures running through the backyard?  How many parents here want to have a kid halfway across the country parked in a dorm and hear that death threats are coming in from all over the state? 

Flimbro, on the photographer:
"None of what I'm saying here has anything to do with cops and protestors and how they respond to orders, but with a talented, fledgling photographer who failed to put himself in a position to advocate for a group that he is in at least partial agreement with."

Maybe the "fledgling" photographer's goal was journalism.  

breal said:
Flimbro, on the photographer:
"None of what I'm saying here has anything to do with cops and protestors and how they respond to orders, but with a talented, fledgling photographer who failed to put himself in a position to advocate for a group that he is in at least partial agreement with."

Maybe the "fledgling" photographer's goal was journalism.  

If you're addressing this to me, I'm not sure what you're asking or suggesting. 

re that "professor", people who derive their income from publicly funded institutions need to watch what they say and how they say it, both in public and on the Internet.  Period.

You fault him for missing an opportunity to advocate.  Me, I don't think the opportunity to advocate is what he wanted.  Me, I think he wanted to report a story.  To commit what was once known as journalism.

I just finished reading about a university where the free exchange of ideas was welcomed and in encouraged.  I have been trying to find it on the internet tubes. Does anyone know where Onion University is?

breal said:
You fault him for missing an opportunity to advocate.  Me, I don't think the opportunity to advocate is what he wanted.  Me, I think he wanted to report a story.  To commit what was once known as journalism.

I think you may have missed some of the exchange. You should go back and read the rest of my posts. You should also listen to what Tim Tai says during the interaction with the students. Then if you're so inclined you should read his tweets. 

He's is sympathetic to the protestors and believes that more attention should be paid to dismantling institutional racism on college campuses. He spent time in Ferguson covering the protests there as well so he's familiar with how to maneuver in hostile environments. On Monday he was shooting the protests for ESPN as a photojournalist and in the course of doing that he misstepped. 

My criticism was based on an understanding of basic journalistic technique. One of the most important rules is to stay out of the way of the story- always maintain observer status. Tai didn't do this- that was his mistake. He allowed the protestors to pull him into the moment and that prevented him from covering the event as effectively as he could have.

And he did get the story. That was what made that flak / professor from the communications department lose it. 

OK