Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts

Monday, April 27, 2020

And Now My Blog is Fit to Share

Facebook symbol from Wikimedia Commons.
For the past several weeks, this media blog has been forbidden on Facebook.

I don’t know why. True, I do express political opinions here—but also true, they’re pretty mild opinions. In my commentary on American media, I opine all the time, and I’m not very kind to President Donald Trump in this venue.

But being anti-Trump is still allowed, not against the law. Yet. I certainly have not engaged in any discourse here that is iffy from a First Amendment point of view—no true threats, no fraud, no libel. Calling Trump an idiot is not libel—mostly because he’s a prominent politician and is thus open to public criticism. And, also, he’s an idiot; truth is a defense against libel.

Yeah, I’m having some fun as I write this. I am feeling a little liberated. Over weekend, several Facebook friends tried to post links to my blog, and all were blocked. They all got the “violates community standards message” from the company.

Well, being OK with the First Amendment doesn’t give me the right to have my blog promoted on Facebook. It’s a private company, and sets its own rules. On the other hand, one reason the site is so popular is that it is a fairly open venue for expression. I don’t mind that Facebook attempts to establish some rules—let’s hope the election of 2020, unlike the one of 2016, is not hijacked so much by fakery spread by Facebook.

The story changed this morning. I was tagged in a post that linked to a blog post of mine--I was back on Facebook! I posted a link myself to be sure, and it was not blocked. So, thanks, Facebook. You’ve let this mostly harmless little blog back in to your Marketplace of Ideas. I think that’s great.

But it was inexplicable that the AI bots at Facebook blocked me in the first place, with no explanation other than a generic “this post does not meet our community standards.” I did read those standards, and found nothing relevant to this blog.

As inexplicably as it appeared, the Facebook ban evaporated. Bravo? Score one for mild free speech?

Thanks, Mary Vermilion. Your post was the first sign Iowa Media Life was Facebook safe once more.
 Still, it leaves me feeling a bit odd. The ban descended mysteriously. It wasn’t quite as mysterious why it was lifted—family and friends played a role—but still. It’s a reminder that Facebook is a private reserve, not a public park. It has a lot of importance in our lives and politics, but is not under any public control.

It’s just a reality to keep in mind. It points to a problem for Facebook, when it's rules appear capricious and it's actions can frustrate its users.

Monday, September 16, 2019

How to keep the republic strong in a social media era

Painting n the U.S. Capitol, by Howard Chandler Christy, in 1940, depicting signing of the Constitution.
As he was leaving a meeting of the constitutional convention in 1787, which was debating in secret over a new government blueprint for the infant United States of America, the elderly Benjamin Franklin, so the story goes, was accosted by a Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia.

“Well doctor,” she asked. “Are we to have a monarchy or a republic?”

Benjamin Franklin by Joseph-Siffred Duplessis.
The ever-quotable Franklin immediately replied:

“A republic. If you can keep it.”

At the time, the convention was riven by partisanship. Two political factions battled for power—the federalists, commercial and urban groups who thought a strong central government was the key to economic prosperity; and the anti-federalists, rural landowners who worried that a strong central government might threaten individual liberty.

To get the Constitution ratified, the federalists struck a bipartisan deal. One of the first orders of business for the new Congress of the United States would be to propose a list of constitutional amendments to spell out guarantees of individual liberty, a so-called Bill of Rights.

Today we recognize the first of those 10 amendments as having been crucial in our history to our republic’s public life. And the language of that First Amendment has never been more relevant:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Bill of Rights original text. There were 12 amendments proposed, the first two were not ratified. What we call the First Amendment today was the Third Amendment in the proposal.
Why freedom of the speech and of the press? Well, in the 1700s, the founders were familiar with a radical British political theory that included the ideal of a “marketplace of ideas,” that an educated public with open access to information unfiltered by government authority should be able to discern truth from falsehood and make rational political choices.

And the Constitution that the founders wrote, a flawed document built on political compromises, still lurches along. It spawned a vibrant republic.

Well done, Ben and company. Except …

It’s no secret that the news media in this country is in upheaval. Fewer staff members toil in local newsrooms. At the same time, disinformation spreads quickly via the internet.

The founders who imagined a marketplace of ideas didn’t contemplate algorithms on social media sites that would measure our clicks and preferences and serve us each an echo chamber of our own prejudices. Nor did they contemplate a president governing via Twitter, calling journalists “enemies of the people.”

In Iowa, we get a front-row seat early in each presidential season. For us, the campaign of 2020 has been underway for months.

More than 200 years ago, the founders of this republic recognized that a free press was a necessary condition to have a self-governing, democratic republic. Today, with staffs of newsrooms shrinking, trolls stalking our twitter world, and crazy theories finding an equal footing with truth in the cyber universe, it’s becoming more of a challenge to have faith in the marketplace of ideas.

 What is the role of news media in the election of 2020? How are the ideals of freedom speech and of the press still relevant to our ongoing effort to maintain our republic? In an era when media are called “enemies” and “fake news,” whose information can you trust?

On Constitution Day 2019, Tuesday, Sept. 17, at 7 p.m. in Betty Cherry Heritage Hall, Mount Mercy University will host a panel discussion on how our First Amendment freedoms interact with the 2020 election campaign.

I and another MMU faculty member, Dr. Richard Barrett, assistant professor of political science, will be joined by several media figures—including Zack Kucharski, executive editor of The Gazette; and Lyle Muller, retired editor of Iowa Watch—to discuss these issues.

I hope you can join us and help us talk about these big issues as jointly we strive to keep our republic.

Note: The preceding was published by "The Gazette" in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Sept. 15, 2019, as a guest column on page 4D. The only editing I could find that they did to my text was to add "strong" to the headline and to insert a paragraph mark at the end--the sentence "I hope you can join us" was part of the previous paragraph in my draft. I present the text here as it was published in "The Gazette." Most images in this post are from Wikimedia Commons, except my image of the column and an image of a poster created by the Marketing and Communication office at Mount Mercy University.


Poster on campus. More information on the MMU web site.


Saturday, December 22, 2018

The TV Don Who Stole Christmas



Starting with the SNL cold open Dec. 15: “It’s a Wonderful Trump,” there have been several examples this week of how tied to TV our president is.

I don’t know exactly which dig touched Donald’s not-funny bone: Maybe it was imaging Melania divorced and speaking perfect English because Trump had been holding back her language skills. Or the repeated “Everyone is better off without me being president.”

Whatever it was, the president was pissed. And he threatened legal action in a post-SNL tweet:


It was a ridiculous tweet, but let’s not so easily let go of the fact that Trump thinks he should have some legal recourse for this SNL segment, and also sees some vast conspiracy, tying an NBC comedy show to news coverage.

Was the SNL bit harsh? Sure. Was it illegal? Hell, no. Not even close. The whole bit was so over the top nobody would this in was asserting actual facts. And even if the criticism of the president was over-the-top, it was totally fair. Americans get to be critical of their leaders—as Donald was of President Obama not that long ago.

And, honestly, I didn’t find any of the criticism to be all that extreme. Ever since his party lost control of the House, President Trump’s administration seems to be lurching, leaderless and falling apart. We seem to be entering a new a sinister time.

And the president’s relationship with TV is a huge part of the problem. Not one week after his odd, inappropriate and, frankly, un-American reaction to the SNL skit, Trump was at it again in a more serious way.

At the end of the week, the House and Senate passed temporary funding bills. The President spent the week sending mixed messages about whether he might sign the bill, based on whether money for his favorite bad idea—the Trump Tolerance Monument known as The Wall—was included.

It looked on Thursday like he would accept it. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that Mexico was going to fund the TTM, was it? But then, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh intervened.

And Trump blinked, decided to go ahead with a shutdown. Colbert sums up the flip flop:



What is the end game? I don’t know, but I am not filled with confidence. The adult rats are all busily scurrying from the Trump Titanic presidency—and, meanwhile, President Trump is taking his cues and advice from “Fox and Friends.”

Republicans in the Senate, especially from Iowa—do you not see this? Ernst, Grassley, is this presidential leadership?

We’ve hit a wall here. And it’s a wall partly built on an odd, inconsistent president who is easily manipulated by the boob tube: President TV Trump.

Friday, May 26, 2017

And Another Reporter "Badgers" A Politician

I don’t know what will happen to assault charges against Greg Gianforte, who was elected to the U.S. House in a special vote Thursday despite body slamming reporter Ben Jacobs of “The Guardian” on Wednesday, but the case is yet another sign of the sorry state of democracy in America today.

We like to think we’re a free people in a free country. Sadly, today, we’re wrong.

Violent thugs are attacking journalists merely for being journalists. A conservative Republican in Montana body slams a reporter for asking about the impact of a Republican health care plan This week, I wrote my media column for The Corridor Business Journal on a related topic—taking my House Rep., Rod Blum, to task for walking out on a TV reporter, after claiming that the reporter was “just going to sit there and badger me.”

And the badger language came back in Montana. If a reporter asks a question, then they “badger,” and, apparently, it’s OK to physically attack badgers.

This is not a reporter. And reporters are not this.
From: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Badger(UO).jpg

This new violent ugliness is dangerous to democracy in its basic sense. It represents a particular and troubling attempt by the right wing of American politics to strong arm the news media.

Now, I don’t think all Republicans are ready to resort to the kind of thuggish behavior exhibited by Greg Gianforte. Frankly, even Greg Gianforte doesn’t want that behavior. While his campaign regrettably tried to attack the reporter’s version of the story, even though it had been supported by others who were there, Gianforte himself at least had the class to apologize directly to the reporter in his victory speech.

His victory speech—that’s right, in America today you can attack a journalists and win an election in Montana.

Watch the video of Gianforte’s apology. The scary part is that even as Gianforte apologizes, his supporters are riled up and seem ready for a rematch. There’s a real “go punch another reporter” spirit in the air.

The reporter, Ben Jacobs, doesn’t go along with those who blame President Trump for this climate—he notes in a video posted by the Guardian that he covered the Trump campaign for 18 months and was never threatened by the candidate. But Trump’s clear labeling of journalists as “enemies of the people” has real consequences that we are seeing unfold.

Now, if you’re on the right, you might note that conservatives haven’t always had it easy, either. University thugs have refused to allow conservative speakers on some campuses—mostly notable, Ann Coulter recently at UC Berkeley. And I would agree that what happened at UC Berkeley should not have happened. Ann Coulter is a pretty loathsome human being and has said some pretty near fascist things—but her voice should not be silenced.

There are some key differences between these cases, however. It’s one thing for a conservative pundit to be prevented from speaking by unruly college students or community activists. It’s quite another for a middle-aged adult who is just about to be elected to Congress to body slam a reporter.

I don’t like the threats that keep Coulter away from UC Berkley, and I do see them as part of the thread of cultural intolerance that bedevils both the political left and political right in this country.

Loud and clear: I want the freedom to say what I want to say. You should be able to, too, even if you’re in visceral and total disagreement with what I say. But we should agree together that we should both be free to disagree.

I say enough of the shoving and shouting. Let us each have our say.

But most of all, Mr. President and others on the right: No more rhetorical or physical threats of violence on reporters, please. That’s authoritarian thuggery. That’s getting to Brown Shirt levels of discourse.

If you run for public office—at any level—in this democracy, you should expect, and respond to, questions from all kinds of reporters. It’s a basic obligation you have to talk with people and with the media. Communicating without violence is the least we can expect from our public servants.

The First Amendment exists not to protect politicians from questions, it exists more to protect the questioners. The scary crowd at Greg Gianforte’s victory party is deeply anti-American.

Not a Republican flag. Nor a Democratic one. It's for us all, as is First Amendment freedoms.
Image I shot on my front porch. Someone flies a flag there.
The new slogan of “The Washington Post” is “democracy dies in darkness.” Sadly, in America today, it’s us, our people, who are throwing shade by threatening, and going beyond threats, to attack journalists.

Mr. Trump, it wasn’t a “great victory” in Montana. Not for democracy.

It feels more like the start of a whimpering end to the American democratic experiment.

Sad.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Is The Calumet Going Up In Smoke?

A detail of a recent edition of The Calumet, from a PDF posted by The Muscatine Journal.

The Calumet is the student newspaper at Muscatine Community College, and 12 of its student staff members recently filed a federal lawsuit against MCC and the Eastern Iowa Community College District, alleging a pattern of harassment against student journalists that violates the First Amendment.

I will not pretend to be a disinterested observer of The Calumet-MCC court dispute. My heart is firmly with The Calumet. For one thing, my journalism career began as a writer for The Calumet in 1978—I’m also a proud former member of the paper’s editorial staff and graduated with AA and AS degrees from MCC in 1980.

The dispute between The Calumet and MCC is complex. It involves a photograph of Dr. Richard Boyer, a professor and interim dean there—a mug shot that was published without his permission. The dispute goes beyond the photo. Read stories about it here and here. The lawsuit involves a suddenly removed advisor, the aforementioned photo, a disputed phone call about the photograph and related stories including, of all things, a controversy over “student of the month.” As the saying goes, the most intense and pitched battles in academia are sometimes over the least valuable turf.

Still, it seems to me that MCC officials have treated their own college student newspaper rather badly.

And that’s troubling, on several levels. College papers are taking it on the chin at many institutions. Many colleges and universities are cutting back on publications or moving totally away from print to online news editions. It seems quaint and old-fashioned to publish a “paper” these days when so many students can’t be bothered to read anything on dead trees. Trust me, just ask any professors anywhere how effective or widespread student reading seems these days.

I am an advisor to a university student newspaper myself. Sure, I worry about the trend away from print partly for my own job security. Newspapers are expensive to produce, and as colleges look for ways to trim costs, they’ll naturally be asking if all that ink and wood pulp is worth it to create newsprint products that seem to simply loiter on newsstands and then later fill landfills.

I would say “yes,” for several reasons.

One, although it sounds new age and cutting edge to move student journalism to online platforms, the audiences for such online sources are tiny compared to the readership of print products. I can’t help but think that one attraction of moving to an online news source for college administrators may be that it removes the irritant of the student newspaper and puts student journalism in a “public” forum where almost nobody sees it. Better to have three nerds read that embarrassing story at that dead-end URL than have hundreds of students, alumni and potential donors exposed to that rude “thing” on campus. So to me, one reason to continue the campus newspaper is that it still provides the most authentic and loudest student voice on campus. And if you like online news, the student newspaper also often provides the staff and raw material for the best online student journalism.

Another reason for continuing college newspapers is that a student newspaper captures and preserves key skills, writing and design, in a way that other media don’t. The paper has a value for portfolio-building for future communicators in any professional writing field. Granted, those “clips” are likely to be PDFs, but those PDFs are still “published” works that mean something and demonstrate basic communication skills in a way class projects and ephemeral online content don’t.

And there is also the foundational nature of the skills students learn at a campus newspaper—the ability to interview, to cover an event, to identify newsworthy ideas and effectively pursue them. There is even the leadership of planning and running a journalistic organization. Granted, students can do good writing and journalism on their own blogs, but they are far less likely to, and with less impact and less teamwork, than on a newspaper staff.

I’ve only been a college professor in this post literate century. The handwriting on the wall for the newspaper industry is old news these days. No student should enter a journalism program today thinking he or she is primarily preparing for a newspaper career.

But the web writers, PR writers, technical writers and corporate writers I’m training in my communication classes today all have to apply the same basic journalistic writing skills that a student journalist learns best at one place on campus: the student newspaper.

Kudos and shout-out to Mount Mercy University. It has maintained a generally positive attitude towards “The Times” in a private setting where student journalists have less legal power than they do at a public college like MCC. We have cut back on the number of issues we publish, but nobody has approached me and suggested we stop printing—indeed the feedback I usually get about our student journalism at MMU is positive even when the paper can make many people (me especially) uncomfortable at times.

So even though the newspaper medium itself is in steep decline in the “real world,” in academia, that old medium has a key place as a training ground and student voice. Just as TV and movies did not make live theater on campus passé, neither should the student newspaper lose its way.

Back to The Calumet. It’s sad that things went so badly for that paper in recent times that a federal lawsuit has resulted. Surely, along the road to the courthouse, there would have been better ways for the parties involved to handle the situation. Knowing student journalists as I do, I doubt all of the fault should be laid at the feet of Boyer or MCC or EICCD administrators.

Still, changing advisors, cutting funds, investigating the advisor, etc.? There seems an unwholesome pattern of pushing The Calumet around in awkward and heavy-handed ways. Instead of valuing a longstanding student paper that has trained generations of writers, the powers that be at MCC seems to have chosen a lower, more short-sighted road.

Maybe frustration with students drove them to it. But students at a community college come and go quickly, and The Calumet has been a vibrant student voice at MCC since the 1950s. If it’s lost, MCC is a poorer place.

And even if blame could be assigned to both sides of this dispute—let’s recall that students comprise one side while educated adults with advanced degrees comprise the other. The more experienced and educated of those sides should be more mature, have a deeper understanding of the place of student journalism and foster, rather than foil, The Calumet. You don’t handle a “teachable moment” very well by burning the newspaper to the ground.

Named after a Native American peace pipe, The Calumet is doing anything but bringing peace. Then again, the place of any journalist in a healthy, democratic culture is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. I wish that MCC would remember and respect that.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Will The Real Edward Snowden Please Stand Up?

From the LA Times, AP photo by Aymann Ismail. Bust of Edward Snowden in a park in Brooklyn, New York.

We’re talking this week in my media class about law and ethics of mass media.

Which raises the interesting question of Edward Snowden, the man who in 2013 revealed how extensive online government monitoring of citizens had become.

We covered some basic ideas early in the week about the First Amendment, and how, even with its absolute-sounding language, that there are all kind of ethical and legal limits on communication.

Snowden revealed the “PRISM” program. The government, in Snowden’s words, “deputized” corporate America to provide internet data to the NSA.

Snowden, after revealing government secrets, fled to Russia and has become controversial.

Students, were is some background information for you:
  • Snowden is likely to be in the news as parts of the PATRIOT Act are up for renewal this year. Jon Oliver explains and does interview with Snowden.
  • One writer implies that Snowden is gaining influence due to your generation.
  • Snowden’s popularity varies worldwide.
  • A 2013 column that concerns mixed reaction to Snowden’s leaks.
  • Pultizer-prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts says Snowden should have faced courts.
Based on what you read here, where do you stand and why? What are the legal and ethical issues of media practice associated with this? Is it right or wrong, for example, for media to use leaked information under this circumstance?