Free Speech on Campus

Professor Lee Epstein and Chancellor Andrew D. Martin

Political Science 334

Spring 2022


TRADITIONAL JOURNALISTIC PRACTICES MEET THE 21st CENTURY (April 13)

Case Study

(This description draws on articles inThe Daily Northwestern, here and here; and in the New York Times, here and here.)

On November 5, 2019 former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was scheduled to speak at Northwestern University at an event sponsored by the University's College Republicans. Northwestern's student newspaper, The Daily Northwestern, sent reporters and a photographer to cover the event.

Before the speech started, student protestors gathered outside the building, chanting and holding signs ("No conSessions, No racism, No KKK, No Facist USA” and "SE$$ION$ I$ A TRAITOR"). Eventually, the protestors tried to interrupt the speech by climbing through windows and pushing through doors. Police tried but failed to block their entrance. In the meantime, Colin Boyle, The Daily's photographer, captured all the action and posted some of his photos on social media.

After one of the students, Ying Dai, saw a picture of herself on Boyle's Twitter feed, she responded on Twitter:

Colin please can we stop this trauma porn. I was on the ground being shoved and pushed hard by the police. You didn’t have to intervene but you also didn’t have to put a camera in front of me top down.

(Later, in an interview Dai said "We weren’t [at the Sessions event] to get in the newspaper. We weren’t there to get national attention. People still hold dear that their journalistic duty is the most important thing, and that’s not the case.")

Boyle quickly deleted the photo of Dai; and, on November 11, The Daily's editors issued an apology for posting it as well as for using Northwestern's directory to contact students for interviews about the protest:

Last week, The Daily was not the paper that Northwestern students deserve... Ultimately, The Daily failed to consider our impact in our reporting surrounding Jeff Sessions. We know we hurt students that night, especially those who identify with marginalized groups.

Among the editors signing the apology was Troy Closson, only the third Black editor-in-chief in The Daily's history.

The Daily's apology generated immediate reactions, many of which were quite negative. A columnist at the Washington Post tweeted: "How is it possible that a newspaper at what is allegedly a top journalism school would apologize for the basics of reporting? This is a travesty and an embarrassment.'' The Dean of Northwestern's journalism school too was critical:

I understand why The Daily editors felt the need to issue their mea culpa. They were beat into submission by the vitriol and relentless public shaming they have been subjected to since the Sessions stories appeared.

[But the editors'] well-intentioned gesture sends a chilling message about journalism and its role in society. It suggests that we are not independent authors of the community narrative, but are prone to bowing to the loudest and most influential voices in our orbit. To be sure, journalism has often bowed to the whim and will of the rich and powerful, so some might argue that it is only fair that those who feel dispossessed and disenfranchised have their turn at calling the journalistic shots. But that is not the solution. We need more diversity among our student journalists (and in journalism writ large). We need more voices from different backgrounds in our newsrooms helping to provide perspective on our coverage. But regardless of their own identities, our student journalists must be allowed—and must have the courage—to cover our community freely and unfettered by harassment each time members of the community feel they have been wronged.

The Daily's editors also had supporters. Wesley Lowery, at the Washington Post, tweeted: "One of the only black students in history to hold his position, student journalist who makes incorrect decision based on sincere desire to not harm marginalized campus group is publicly decried by industry’s most powerful (white) journalists. Definitely a lesson to be learned here!''

Editor-in-Chief Closson also responded on Twitter: "We aren't unclear about our rights as a newspaper to cover student protest, but also understand the need to do so with empathy."

Readings

  1. Please read the material linked in the case study. Pay special attention to this article in the Times, which notes that Harvard's student newspaper, The Crimson, faced criticism for its coverage of a student protest over ICE and especially for its decision to contact ICE officials for comment. In a note to readers, The Crimson's editors stood by their decision, noting that "Foremost among [commonly accepted set of journalistic standards] is the belief that every party named in a story has a right to comment or contest criticism leveled against them." (Please read The Crimson note.)

  2. Also read this material (covering the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964)

Section/Class Activities

  1. Review the case study and consider the various clashes of values. E.g., should the "commonly accepted set of journalistic standards" give way to "a more sensitive approach to reporting that considers the vulnerability of the people whose lives are portrayed," as Ying Dai put it.

  2. As you know from Reading #2, the Supreme Court has developed different rules for libel depending on the plaintiff (the person bringing the lawsuit) and the nature of the subject matter. Would it be reasonable to rethink journalistic standards along similar lines: apply traditional journalistic standards to public officials/public figures but more sensitive, empathetic standards to private individuals?

  3. Devise questions for Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times and a former editor of Yale's student newspaper, who will join us on April 13.