Melissa Click has been fired.
February 26, 2016 9:05 AM   Subscribe

Controversial prof booted by University of Missouri Board of Curators. Communication faculty member Click rose to fame and notoriety for her role in recent protests against Missouri's administration, where she called for two journalists, one a student, to be blocked or removed from a protest site. Images and video of her circulated widely.

Recently Click was suspended by Mizzou, and also charged with assault by local prosecutors. She ended her appointment with the university's journalism department. A group of state legislators wanted her gone. A similarly-sized group of faculty publicly supported Click.

Some students and faculty have criticized the Board's decision.

A report to the Board has been made available; the Chronicle of Higher Education shared some extracts.

Previously on the blue.
posted by doctornemo (155 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite
 
She earned her dismissal...and admitted she did a stupid thing.
posted by Postroad at 9:15 AM on February 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


Once again, this comes back to the point that the press needs to stop buying into their publicity. People are outraged that she would seek to stop the press from capturing protestors, but nobody wants to consider why protestors might not see the press as allies.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:17 AM on February 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


This was the correct decision. Mizzou has one of the best journalism programs in the country and there's no way they could've kept a professor who intimidated a photojournalist like that. No matter her noble intentions, it's not excuse.
posted by girlmightlive at 9:17 AM on February 26, 2016 [35 favorites]


First Amendment, FTW?
posted by Chuffy at 9:18 AM on February 26, 2016


As someone with close connections to Mizzou -- this entire story frustrates me. I don't know what the right action to take against Click was, but I do know this:

In the heat of the moment, someone who should have known better did something very stupid. The world is unforgiving, and there will be no taking it back--no apologies that can fix it. In a few minutes, she lost a reputation and career she probably spent decades building. I feel sorry for her.

And in the meantime, the story about Melissa Click has become a distractor from the real issues that face MU (and every university campus). Racism on campus has not been solved. The reactionary Missouri legislature has proposed bills that would punish students engaged in protest and punish the school if it doesn't stomp on those students' faces hard enough.

Melissa Click has been used by people to discredit the protests and to distract from the issues that really need to be debated. She's an easy target -- the example everyone on the right ever wanted of a liberal who wants to kill America through censorship of non-politically correct ideas. They got their talking point, and meanwhile, students of color on Mizzou's campus are pushed to the side -- again.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:32 AM on February 26, 2016 [103 favorites]


This was a terrible and stupid decision made by the Board of Curators of the University of Missouri System. It circumvented the established processes put in place to handle issues with faculty and staff on the University of Missouri (Columbia) campus. This was unprecedented action made by a Board of Curators kowtowing to radical, openly-racist Republican state legislators who were vowing to make sweeping budget cuts to the entire University of Missouri System (which is four campuses, not just Columbia) in order to "teach them a lesson" [direct quote].
The Board believes this firing will solve the problem without understanding that these legislators want to watch the world burn. Destroying public universities is their end game.

Melissa Click was a scapegoat, an untenured white professor who was protecting and defending Black student protesters. She apologized for her actions. The city prosecutor charged her with misdemeanor assault but declined to prosecute, and in these documents it says the charges were dropped. Her actions were regrettable, but she should not have lost her job over offending the press.

In discussing Click's sins, however, we can avoid any conversation about the systemic racism that permeates this school and this state. After all, as Shakespeare noted, the key to silencing rebellion at home is turning attention elsewhere and giving the people someone to attack.
posted by aabbbiee at 9:35 AM on February 26, 2016 [37 favorites]


Once again, this comes back to the point that the press needs to stop buying into their publicity. People are outraged that she would seek to stop the press from capturing protestors, but nobody wants to consider why protestors might not see the press as allies.\

Nope. It's irrelevant why the protesters might not see the press as allies, the press had a right to be there reporting and Click and the protesters had no right to do what they did.

The press gets to be there whether the subject wants them or not. It's sickening that there would be any question about this, and it's surprising to find it on MeFi on all places.

I guarantee if this had been the Young Republicans or some Christian student group protesting a university policy favoring access to contraceptives or abortion, or demonstrating for allowing guns on campus, and that group had attempted to shut out and shut down the press in this way, MeFi would be howling for blood.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:36 AM on February 26, 2016 [83 favorites]


Regardless of the whether you believe Click "should" have lost her job, there are some very worrying due process issues here. There are available procedures for terminating a faculty member- these were ignored. Instead, the Board (perhaps under pressure from state legislators) created their own rules and acted as judge, jury and executioner. There are first amendment issues that protect public employees, as well. If Click decides to sue, we can expect a lot of disclosure here, including perhaps some insight into communications between board members and/or senior administrators. We'll see what FOIA requests might reveal, and whether it is as embarrassing or as damaging as the Salaita case at Illinois.
posted by cushie at 9:36 AM on February 26, 2016 [15 favorites]


> nobody wants to consider why protestors might not see the press as allies

Oh, I totally want to consider it.

But "considering it" should not include a tenure-track professor attempting to control a student's actions in a public space with threats of physical violence, all in an attempt to squash that student's 1st amendment rights. Whether Dr. Click was attempting to assist the protesters (who clearly have valid concerns against Mizzou) is beside the point. Also, it is worth noting that the protesters themselves did not attempt to repress their fellow student's rights while exercising their own.
posted by a complicated history at 9:38 AM on February 26, 2016 [22 favorites]


It may be argued that her actions are compatible with the nature and context of the protest, but they are fundamentally incompatible with the position and authority she held at the time.
posted by Behemoth at 9:39 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


"People are outraged that she would seek to stop the press from capturing protestors, but nobody wants to consider why protestors might not see the press as allies."
...But why should anyone who hasn't already bought into the goals of any protest have any shits to give for how protesters feel about the press? In a mature democracy there aught to be tension between the press and protesters, just like there should be tension between the press and whatever is being protested. That tension is a healthy valuable thing to both protesters and their audiences, if the press were unambiguous allies of any political movement then they would not be "press" but something else.

People who feel they can only be critiqued by 'allies' have no place in political discourse, and wishing that were not so will not change the unambiguous way that it is.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:40 AM on February 26, 2016 [46 favorites]


nobody wants to consider why protestors might not see the press as allies.

The press is not supposed to be your ally. It is supposed to report the news. She of all people should know that. Granted, there's a lot of falling short from pure disinterest, but if you don't want to be in paper, don't start a public protest. And if you want to teach journalism, don't assault journalists.
posted by IndigoJones at 9:40 AM on February 26, 2016 [21 favorites]


Nope. It's irrelevant why the protesters might not see the press as allies, the press had a right to be there reporting and Click and the protesters had no right to do what they did.

I'll repeat what I said the last time we had this discussion - capability, authorization, and justification are three very distinct things, and it would be nice if you didn't try to conflate them.

Instead of using the First Amendment as a bludgeon, it would behoove the press to do some reflection on why, exactly, protestors might not see them as a positive.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:41 AM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


I'll repeat what I said the last time we had this discussion - capability, authorization, and justification are three very distinct things, and it would be nice if you didn't try to conflate them.

And I'll repeat what I said the last time we had this discussion: this is naked, rank hypocrisy and convenient rationalization of actions you would otherwise decry but support in this because it's being done by people you agree with.

Again, I somehow don't see you extending this level of understanding and nuance if the actions had been taken on behalf of people advocating conservative causes.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:43 AM on February 26, 2016 [33 favorites]


Awful sequence of events. No winners, only losers. I found out about Click's dismissal from the NYTimes (not linked in FPP [I think]).

The NYTimes's contextualization of the events leading to Click's dismissal suggests they are symptoms of a social disease that pervades Missouri.

I also think it's a stupid easy bet that these events are symptomatic of a social disease that pervades entire U. S. of A.
The episode diverted attention from the subject of the protests, racism experienced by black students, which they said the university had not taken seriously and had done nothing to combat. A series of racist incidents, including death threats against protesters that resulted in arrests, increased tension on a campus already roiled by unrelated conflicts, including a dispute over graduate teaching assistants’ health care and their attempt to unionize, and the university’s decision, under pressure from conservative lawmakers, to sever ties to Planned Parenthood.

The students and university employees protesting racism considered themselves part of the growing Black Lives Matter movement, and many of them had taken part in demonstrations in Ferguson, a suburb of St. Louis, after a white police officer there killed an unarmed black man. The campus conflict came to a head when the university football team threatened to boycott a game unless the president of the university system, Timothy M. Wolfe, resigned.

Mr. Wolfe did step down, along with R. Bowen Loftin, the chancellor of the Columbia campus.
My goodness.
posted by mistersquid at 9:45 AM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


The press is not supposed to be your ally. It is supposed to report the news.

Actually, the case of reporting on protesters in Mizzou has generated considerable discussion among journalists about the power dynamic that exists between journalists and what they're reporting on.

The Click/Mizzou controversy comes at a time when there is a growing movement to adopt the practices of "engaged journalism", where there is greater communication and even collaboration between journalists and the communities they are reporting on, with the aim of allowing the communities themselves to shape the narrative from the ground up, instead of from the top (journalists banging on typewriters) down paradigm that exists today.

So, as a journalist myself, I would challenge the assumption that journalists always objectively "report on the news." Journalists create the news.
posted by My Dad at 9:46 AM on February 26, 2016 [20 favorites]


I am glad the board acted decisively to eradicate the scourge of racism from the campus and to restore health care to graduate students.

Oh?

This is not that?
posted by srboisvert at 9:48 AM on February 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


This was unprecedented action made by a Board of Curators kowtowing to a radical, openly-racist Republican state legislators who were vowing to make sweeping budget cuts to the entire University of Missouri System (which is four campuses, not just Columbia) in order to "teach them a lesson" [direct quote].

I want to favorite this comment a bunch of times.

If we're going to discuss Click, it should be clear that it's not just a discussion about whether she should keep her job; it's also a discussion about political interference in hiring and firing at a state university.

I know several people who think that Click should have been let go, but not through a politically-motivated circumvention of the established processes. That's a disturbing development for many, regardless of their opinion about Click.

It bears repeating: The pressure to fire Click without following the due process rules of the university is just one of the reactionary responses from Missouri Republicans over this issue. It's not about free speech or freedom of the press; these are the same people who have threatened budget cuts if the university doesn't stifle student protest. Freedom of the press is only a figleaf to cover their real intentions, which is to exert control over and punish a campus for being too liberal.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:49 AM on February 26, 2016 [44 favorites]


As a person who was at the protest and witnessed some of the events, I have been outraged at the lack of diligence that the press has given to adding the necessary context to this story.

I appreciated Arthur Chu's take on it at the time: Actually, It Is About Ethics in Journalism
posted by aabbbiee at 9:49 AM on February 26, 2016 [12 favorites]


The Click/Mizzou controversy comes at a time when there is a growing movement to adopt the practices of "engaged journalism", where there is greater communication and even collaboration between journalists and the communities they are reporting on, with the aim of allowing the communities themselves to shape the narrative from the ground up, instead of from the top (journalists banging on typewriters) down paradigm that exists today.

journalism that excludes adversarial ability is simply pr
posted by p3on at 9:52 AM on February 26, 2016 [12 favorites]


Lookit all these rubes, thinking that journalists are objective, or that every story has "two sides."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:53 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


It was an assault, pure and simple.

Imagine I walk up to you in a public place and say, get out of here. The reason I want you to leave is irrelevant. But if you don't leave, I turn to other people and say, "Can we get some muscle over here?" Obviously, the implication is that I want to use the muscle to forcibly remove you.

Do feel threatened, yes or no? If yes, I've committed assault.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:57 AM on February 26, 2016 [26 favorites]


And yet the city prosecutor declined to prosecute.
posted by aabbbiee at 9:58 AM on February 26, 2016


So there's several major stories here about enormous failures to acknowledge (let alone address) systemic racism, concerted state government efforts to suppress freedom of speech and assembly, a complete removal of the normal due process, and political malfeasance from an institution with serious ethical issues, but as usual the real story is supposed to be about one obnoxious person on camera and the horrors of PC culture.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:58 AM on February 26, 2016 [13 favorites]


"It may be argued that her actions are compatible with the nature and context of the protest,"
...and how the fuck would that be exactly?

Her actions fundamentally invalidated the goals of the protest, assaulted a student, protected no one and nothing, and prevented a journalist from telling the story of an event happening on public property. The context was a public celebration of a public event on public property that was of significant national interest, there was no reasonable way to expect journalists to ignore the event.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:59 AM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


I was thinking of posting this a while ago but it didn't seem meaty enough for an FPP
The 12 Kinds of Emails Melissa Click Got After Blocking Media
posted by Clustercuss at 9:59 AM on February 26, 2016


The Board of Curators, the governing body of the University of Missouri, consists of nine members, who are appointed by the governor...

This particular firing, regardless if you think it is justified, was not done through proper channels, but done through state political pressure on a university.
posted by demiurge at 10:00 AM on February 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


journalism that excludes adversarial ability is simply pr

Yes, and journalism that is more often adversarial to the powerless, reinforcing the tropes promoted by the moneyed and the powerful, is ______.
posted by zippy at 10:01 AM on February 26, 2016 [12 favorites]


the real story is supposed to be about one obnoxious person on camera and the horrors of PC culture.

And people are really, really insistent on talking about this story. We absolutely must talk more about how Click did something terrible -- even when others repeatedly beg for more attention to be paid to the systemic issues.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:03 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


journalism that excludes adversarial ability is simply pr

So what you are suggesting is that the press should have adopted an adversarial stance towards the protesters at Mizzou, or the women who came out to report sexual assault at the hands of Jian Ghomeshi and Bill Cosby.

Of course you're not, because you recognize that, compared to some groups, journalists wield considerable power and can shape the narrative. That's not journalism. Journalism in this context is listening and reporting on what people are saying about their own experience.

On the other hand, Fox news is certainly adversarial in tone, and is also most certainly PR.
posted by My Dad at 10:04 AM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


And yet the city prosecutor declined to prosecute.

It's not a good idea to say that just because a DA declines to prosecute a case that there was no crime committed.
posted by chimaera at 10:04 AM on February 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


Yes, and journalism that is more often adversarial to the powerless, reinforcing the tropes promoted by the moneyed and the powerful, is ______.

the correct response to this situation is to report the truth, not choose favoring the opposite camp
posted by p3on at 10:05 AM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


...and how the fuck would that be exactly?

It's not what I believe, but some people here and elsewhere do appear to hold that view; it's a bit of a controversial and subjective area. The second part of my statement, however, I see as unequivocally true.
posted by Behemoth at 10:05 AM on February 26, 2016


So what you are suggesting is that the press should have adopted an adversarial stance towards the protesters at Mizzou, or the women who came out to report sexual assault at the hands of Jian Ghomeshi and Bill Cosby.

i was responding to the 'engaged journalism' position i quoted, which explicitly outlined its goal as allowing communities to shape narratives reported in the media. this isn't the job of reporters, it's civic pr instead of unbiased reporting of the facts.
posted by p3on at 10:09 AM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


And yet the city prosecutor declined to prosecute.
It's not a good idea to say that just because a DA declines to prosecute a case that there was no crime committed.


Especially since they didn't "decline to prosecute." Usually that means that someone was accused or arrested by the police, but the DA declined to bring charges.

In this case, the DA brought charges, but then entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with Click in exchange for her agreement to a year of probation and 20 hours of community service.
posted by Jahaza at 10:10 AM on February 26, 2016 [11 favorites]


And people are really, really insistent on talking about this story. We absolutely must talk more about how Click did something terrible -- even when others repeatedly, emphatically beg for more attention to be paid to the systemic issues behind her firing, and more broadly, behind the whole fiasco in the first place.

I find it very odd to see so many comments in this thread handwaving away what happened because it's drawing away from the True Discussion. Just because the protesters are fighting for something noble and good doesn't mean that anything they do is therefore noble and good, or excusable because it's in furtherance of the Cause.

If you want attention and discussion of the issues the protesters want addressed, one key way to achieve that is press coverage. But part of press coverage is not having total control over what is covered or done by the press. You can't have it both ways, having both press coverage but also complete control of the message. There are ways of controlling the message but that means sacrificing coverage: for example, operating only in private and maintaining strict control of any information provided to the outside world.

If you wouldn't be cool with people you disagree with doing these kinds of things, you can't be cool with people you agree with doing them.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go cash my check from the Man for distracting people from the True Discussion. They pay excellent per-comment rates, MeMail for details!
posted by Sangermaine at 10:12 AM on February 26, 2016 [29 favorites]


What an ugly mess. It frightens me. And I'm looking desperately for Mr. Rodgers' helpers. Where are they?
posted by valkane at 10:13 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is from the Arthur Chu piece and I think it's important. It's also something I did not know - that the part that students didn't want photographed wasn't the protest itself:

But the incident everyone’s talking about occurred after the announcement of President Wolfe’s resignation, when the event had shifted from a protest to a post-protest celebration. More importantly, Wolfe’s resignation, as Libby Nelson from Vox points out in the above link, was driven far more by social media pressure within the school — and, crucially, the strike of Mizzou’s predominantly black football team, which stood to cost Mizzou a million dollars if their next game was forfeited — than external media pressure.

Contrary to some of the enormously entitled and tone-deaf journalists claiming Mizzou protesters should be grateful to the national press for giving them exposure, this victory is one that mostly happened because of the direct financial loss the administration faced if the players’ strike continued. Protesters felt that journalists were intruding on a private celebration of a private victory, and made it clear they didn’t consider journalists welcome at that celebration, putting up signs and making announcements to that effect.

Was this a legally enforceable request? Of course not. But it was an explicit statement they did not give consent to be photographed, and an ethical journalist avoids violating people’s consent without good reason. If I were having lunch with a friend in a public park and I told a stranger with a camera — and, whatever their job description, that’s all a journalist really is — that I’d rather not be photographed, he can still take my picture if he wants. I can’t legally stop him. But he’s an asshole if he does so — or a vulture, or a paparazzo, or a boundary-crossing cad, or whatever word you want to substitute — and I have every right to get mad at him.


Relatedly, I had a funny thing happen and then I asked a friend who used to be a working journalist about it: I was at a Black Lives Matter protest and was surprise-interviewed by a TV journalist, and in the moment I forgot that the protest organizers had asked that white people not talk to the media so that the voices of POC could be lifted up. I didn't give a long comment, but I'm usually pretty good at punchy comments to media, and I could tell the guy wanted to use it. Only afterward did I remember what the protest organizers had asked, and I totally freaked out, thinking that everyone would hate me, etc. So I went and found the guy and asked him not to use the interview. He wasn't very happy, but he agreed.

So then I went home and asked my journo friend about it - would this dude just go ahead and use the interview anyway, because after all I couldn't stop him? And my friend said that when he'd been working (recently switched careers) it was considered very poor form to use material that a subject had explicitly asked you not to use, unless there was some very compelling reason to use it. He said it was something that journalists actually take very seriously and regularly talk through.

And sure enough, the material doesn't seem to have been used - I haven't watched every bit of coverage of that event, but I'm pretty sure that someone would have seen it and pointed it out, since people spotted me in the coverage of something else.

Of course, maybe it's different for me since I was a white person making this request.
posted by Frowner at 10:14 AM on February 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


A white public official tried to use their position of authority (along with threats of violence) to deprive a student of their rights, and got caught on video, and the DA declined to prosecute. In Missouri. Shocker!
posted by a complicated history at 10:15 AM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


I find it very odd to see so many comments in this thread handwaving away what happened because it's drawing away from the True Discussion. Just because the protesters are fighting for something noble and good doesn't mean that anything they do is therefore noble and good, or excusable because it's in furtherance of the Cause.

I certainly wasn't doing that, and I think it's pretty telling that that's how you're characterizing it. And let's not forget that this is a two-way street: I'm seeing nothing from you about the multitude of equally or larger abuses of power and attempts to curtail freedom of speech going on around this story. Throwing around accusations of handwaving and bias when you're at least as guilty of it as anyone else does the conversation no favors.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:19 AM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


What an ugly mess. It frightens me. And I'm looking desperately for Mr. Rodgers' helpers. Where are they?

Anyone with any passion to do good in the world has already bought into a totalizing morality that either sanctifies or villifies the protesters. Anyone with any sense knows to stay far away.
posted by Bobicus at 10:21 AM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


Racism is NOT the issue in this instance, and to conflate the two is to suggest that it is ok for a teacher of journalism to bully a journalist. Now there may be two sides to the issue, but since the person at issue here has herself said she did a dumb and unwarranted thing, I have to take her at her word. I had myself some years back been as a faculty member involved in 3 faculty strikes at a university, so it is not that I am pro-administration. In fact I lost my job and profession as a result of the last strike.
posted by Postroad at 10:25 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Chu's hit piece is horrible. Calling Tim Tai a "paparazzo" and an "asshole", asserting that he was only there "for clicks", asserting that photographers need "permission" to cover a public protest. He should be ashamed to be invoking Gamergate, because he's Gamergating Tai: ginning up outrage because the media won't conform to his invented rules and create only the PR he wants.

Here's Tai's blog. Go ahead and look at his pictures, including one at the Ferguson protests that won an award, and see if he deserves this kind of smearing. Tai is a person and a student at the university, not a monolithic "The Press".

From what I've been able to find, Tai was embarrassed by the attention, supported the goals of the protesters, and accepted the apologies of the professors concerned. The nasty treatment of Tai is being used by the legislature, quite contrary to his intent, as a tool against Click.
posted by zompist at 10:26 AM on February 26, 2016 [49 favorites]


that the part that students didn't want photographed wasn't the protest itself

As I said, I was there. This context is important, but it did not appear in most stories about the events, including those written by local media. Hundreds of protesters were there on that quad, yet article after article quoted only journalists. There had been a huge rally with media everywhere, protesters swaying together singing We Shall Overcome, plenty of time for plenty of footage. Most of the Tim Tai photos I've seen from that event were taken during this rally. After this rally, the students asked for space and the media refused to grant it. The protesters formed a ring around the students to keep out the harassing media. This is when the viral video was shot.

Almost every article out there ignored this context and claimed that the students blocked all media entry, which was not only untrue, but obviously and demonstrably untrue given the available footage.
posted by aabbbiee at 10:28 AM on February 26, 2016 [8 favorites]


Anyone with any passion to do good in the world has already bought into a totalizing morality that either sanctifies or villifies the protesters. Anyone with any sense knows to stay far away.

I think you just summed up US politics as a whole. And that's why I drink.
posted by valkane at 10:31 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


The protesters formed a ring around the students to keep out the harassing media.

are you being serious here
posted by p3on at 10:31 AM on February 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


I don't personally subscribe to the idea that the press MUST be present at and report on things regardless of what harms it causes to vulnerable people. I think that's shit for ethics. Everyone has a duty to care how their actions have the potential to harm others, and journalists are not to be held to different ethical standards in my opinion.
posted by xarnop at 10:34 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


you can't be cool with people you agree with doing them

Let me clear something up for you:

The people who are begging for more attention to paid to the systemic issues that make up the context of this firing are not necessarily defending Click's actions. In fact, most aren't.

This should be obvious given how often we've referred to Click's actions as stupid, as a mistake, as inconsistent with values that she should be protecting -- but yet, this exact confusion is a stubborn pattern in the discourse around click. Everyone must be convinced that what Click did was wrong, even if they already agree. The focus must remain on Click.

The pattern is so pervasive it is making me legitimately cynical about people's motives. Sometimes you can have an interesting discussion as a result (e.g. the one here about the role of the press), but the pattern is overall, one side saying there is a context here that is really worth drawing attention to while the other side is saying Click did something wrong.

Everyone reading this thread should follow-up on the links in aabbbiee's comments if they haven't already. There is a lot going on here.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:34 AM on February 26, 2016 [11 favorites]


asserting that he was only there "for clicks",

He got one!
posted by stargell at 10:35 AM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


The protesters formed a ring around the students to keep out the harassing media.

are you being serious here

Yes, it's called the First Amendment. Protesters actually have rights under the First Amendment, despite what you might think from the way journalists covered this story.
posted by aabbbiee at 10:40 AM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


As I said, I was there. This context is important, but it did not appear in most stories about the events, including those written by local media. Hundreds of protesters were there on that quad, yet article after article quoted only journalists. There had been a huge rally with media everywhere, protesters swaying together singing We Shall Overcome, plenty of time for plenty of footage. Most of the Tim Tai photos I've seen from that event were taken during this rally. After this rally, the students asked for space and the media refused to grant it. The protesters formed a ring around the students to keep out the harassing media. This is when the viral video was shot.

All this coverage also leans on the fact that not only have most Americans never ever been to a protest, but we've all been trained to think that protesting at all means you're some kind of hippie PC-thug feminazi lunatic whiner-baby, so therefore everything you do must be stupid and inexplicable.

But actually, yeah, being at a large, intense public event where you're being filmed all the time is pretty goddamn draining and stressful, and I can totally see why some student attendees might just want, like, not to be subject to filming for a few minutes. I'm not sure what exactly filming them would have added to the story, either - is there some suspicion that the students wanted to be off-camera in order to conceal something or to engage in skullduggery?
posted by Frowner at 10:41 AM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


"engaged journalism", where there is greater communication and even collaboration between journalists and the communities they are reporting on, with the aim of allowing the communities themselves to shape the narrative from the ground up

That almost sounds like a press release.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 10:42 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Yes, it's called the First Amendment. Protesters actually have rights under the First Amendment, despite what you might think from the way journalists covered this story.

under what standard was the press "harassing"? the demonstration was organized in a public space and journalists have exactly as much claim to that space as demonstrators. protesters have rights under the first amendment that protect them from the government. this is a totally spurious claim.
posted by p3on at 10:42 AM on February 26, 2016 [23 favorites]


i was responding to the 'engaged journalism' position i quoted, which explicitly outlined its goal as allowing communities to shape narratives reported in the media. this isn't the job of reporters, it's civic pr instead of unbiased reporting of the facts.

I totally disagree with you.
posted by My Dad at 10:43 AM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


p3on, you weren't there. I was. I know harassment when I see it.
posted by aabbbiee at 10:45 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Alumni, endowment, and budget. She just didn't Click right with that trifecta.
posted by buzzman at 10:45 AM on February 26, 2016


p3on, you weren't there. I was. I know harassment when I see it.

ah, so a totally extralegal standard
posted by p3on at 10:45 AM on February 26, 2016 [18 favorites]


it was considered very poor form to use material that a subject had explicitly asked you not to use

This is really only if that groundwork is laid before the interview. ("This is off the record/on background/not for attribution, etc.") The journalist has no obligation after the fact if the interview was granted freely and on the record, though there are some circumstances where he or she might grant such a request.
posted by stargell at 10:47 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


p3on, you weren't there. I was. I know harassment when I see it.

clearly, aabbbiee, you should have tucked a note saying "PRESS" into your hatband,as this would have turned you into a journalist and granted you instant credibility. Since you're merely relaying things that you saw, you're inherently unreliable, unlike journalists!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:47 AM on February 26, 2016 [15 favorites]


I mean, if the idea that anything and everything is "news" and should therefore be subject to filming, why aren't we all advocating for universal surveillance everywhere at all times, particularly in public places? If some stressed out students who want a break from being filmed in a really tense situation are so much "news" that it's evil and bad to try to keep out the media, surely there's no reason for any kind of privacy anytime anywhere. Why am I not constantly being filmed any time I set foot on campus, with the results constantly being broadcast? After all, I'm a union member and friend of subversives - I might be up to something! It might be that I'm headed to a protest! I might be talking to some kind of activist, and that might be critical to a breaking story.
posted by Frowner at 10:49 AM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


unbiased reporting of the facts

This does not and has never existed.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:52 AM on February 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


I mean, if the idea that anything and everything is "news" and should therefore be subject to filming, why aren't we all advocating for universal surveillance everywhere at all times, particularly in public places?

this is disingenuous relating to the argument at hand. we're talking about reporters at a public demonstration, which exists de facto to be reported on, when suddenly a magic line is drawn by the participants who decide it is no longer public despite continuing with the same participants in the same space. that isn't how it works. if they wanted privacy they should have reorganized in a private space. using coercion to exclude reporters is inexcusable.
posted by p3on at 10:53 AM on February 26, 2016 [40 favorites]


This does not and has never existed.

i'll settle for an attempt to screen outright biases
posted by p3on at 10:54 AM on February 26, 2016


If some stressed out students who want a break from being filmed in a really tense situation

You don't have a right to privacy in a public space in the US. This has been argued and upheld again and again. A student is free to go at anytime. It is not anyone else's responsibility to make that concession for him/her.
posted by girlmightlive at 10:57 AM on February 26, 2016 [25 favorites]


Yeah, and as the Chu piece says, you don't have a "right to privacy" in public but it's still a dick move to film people who don't want to be filmed if there's no real news reason to do so. And you've got to ask yourself - what exactly was going to be added to the story by filming students when they asked not to be filmed in the winding-down of the event? Everyone is acting as though this is some giant crime against the sacred heart of journalism, like there was something that really would have been accomplished by filming the students.
posted by Frowner at 10:59 AM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Imagine I walk up to you in a public place and say, get out of here. The reason I want you to leave is irrelevant. But if you don't leave, I turn to other people and say, "Can we get some muscle over here?" Obviously, the implication is that I want to use the muscle to forcibly remove you.

Do feel threatened, yes or no? If yes, I've committed assault.


I agree. Can we arrest Trump now?
posted by el io at 11:03 AM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


even if it's a dick move, which is debatable, it isn't illegal, and you're violating the rights of the journalist by excluding him. click was violating his civil rights. what is so difficult to understand about this.
posted by p3on at 11:03 AM on February 26, 2016 [16 favorites]


If some stressed out students who want a break from being filmed in a really tense situation

Would this apply equally to the Malheur occupation? What if Ammon Bundy was feeling really stressed out and just wanted the media to go away for a little while? I don't know nearly enough about Click's situation to comment, but some of the arguments against the press here really bother me.
posted by dialetheia at 11:05 AM on February 26, 2016 [24 favorites]


This firing seems like overreaction to me, and the process from which it resulted seems really flawed, and context really, really matters when it comes to judging what to get outraged about. But I'm astonished by some of the views of the role of journalism expressed in this thread.

it's still a dick move to film people who don't want to be filmed if there's no real news reason to do so. And you've got to ask yourself - what exactly was going to be added to the story by filming students when they asked not to be filmed

It is incredibly important that you (or the protestors in a public place) don't have the right to determine what counts as a dick move; and that journalists be allowed to do things that very many people would define as dick moves. It boggles my mind when people call for journalists to be more nice and polite and respectful like this. Don't you see that if that kind of principle gets entrenched, it will be as readily used as a weapon against all the things you stand for, as in support of them?
posted by oliverburkeman at 11:09 AM on February 26, 2016 [39 favorites]


It boggles my mind when people call for journalists to be more nice and polite and respectful like this. Don't you see that if that kind of principle gets entrenched, it will be as readily used as a weapon against all the things you stand for, as in support of them?

Journalism as it currently operates (in the US) is already used as a weapon against people and what they stand for. The terrible future you foresee is a reality on the ground. The boogeyman is already out of the closet. These "call[s]" are a reaction to that.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:16 AM on February 26, 2016 [7 favorites]


It was an assault, pure and simple.

Imagine I walk up to you in a public place and say, get out of here. The reason I want you to leave is irrelevant. But if you don't leave, I turn to other people and say, "Can we get some muscle over here?" Obviously, the implication is that I want to use the muscle to forcibly remove you.

Do feel threatened, yes or no? If yes, I've committed assault.


Hmm. Maaaaaybe it was an assault. Possibly. But in all honesty probably not. The question is whether there is a apprehension of immediate violence. A general sense of feeling threatened is not the same as an apprehension of immediate violence. "If you don't get out of here I'll kill you" does not typically create the apprehension of an immediate violent act, because the victim has the option of leaving in order to avoid a blow being struck. There is also the question of whether words can constitute an assault in themselves, which varies between jurisdictions.

Basically I think you're overgeneralisating the specific notion of threat or apprehension that applies in this context. Also it's a very law school sort of argument. That's not how charging and prosecuting assault works in the real world at all.
posted by howfar at 11:33 AM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Any state university president can call a press conference in his or her office, end it at will, and call on taxpayer-paid muscle to evict any journalists who refuse to leave afterwards. This is not particularly controversial, I think. The main difference between that and the situation here, as far as I can tell, is that a university president's office is generally thought of as private space, while a university quad is generally thought of as public space. But perhaps it's worth reflecting on whether there's a reason that a group of students protesting the historical and present treatment of their group might not have a private space that they can retreat to to conduct business in private, and whether allowing them exclusive use of a small bit of public space for a limited period of time might be acceptable.
posted by burden at 11:36 AM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Since you're merely relaying things that you saw, you're inherently unreliable, unlike journalists!

Except aabbbiee is manifestly not relaying things that she saw and is just saying "I know it when I see it."
posted by Justinian at 11:39 AM on February 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


Hmm. Maaaaaybe it was an assault. Possibly. But in all honesty probably not'

She was charged with and plead guilty to assault.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:40 AM on February 26, 2016 [11 favorites]


But perhaps it's worth reflecting on whether there's a reason that a group of students protesting the historical and present treatment of their group might not have a private space that they can retreat to to conduct business in private

sorry, are you asserting that every participant here was homeless or something?
posted by p3on at 11:41 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


So what you are suggesting is that the press should have adopted an adversarial stance towards the protesters at Mizzou, or the women who came out to report sexual assault at the hands of Jian Ghomeshi and Bill Cosby.

This weird hypothetical is completely disconnected from the issue at hand. I watched the video several times in its entirety, and it's unambiguous that the antagonist was not the student journalist—who was literally just standing in place and holding a camera—but the throng of protesters who physically invaded the space he occupied and tried to intimidate him to leave.

Arguments that this was a powerless group and therefore the usual laws and basic decency don't apply undermines my sympathy for the protesters.

MetaFilter needs something like the Daily Show has, a bunch of interns sitting around combing through and comparing posts from people to demonstrate the utter lack of consistency on some topics. The lack of self-awareness is remarkable, and frustrating.

I guess principled consistency is just another tool of oppression.
posted by echocollate at 11:42 AM on February 26, 2016 [21 favorites]


Journalism as it currently operates (in the US) is already used as a weapon against people and what they stand for.

Yes, journalism is used as a weapon, as it should be. God help us when it is not.

The "terrible future" in oliverburkeman's post is one in which a mandate to be nice/polite/respectful is the bigger weapon. We should strive to be nice/polite/respectful. But those demands do not make us right and should not grant us the upper hand.

I mean seriously. Let's think about times when progressives have been told to be nice/polite/respectful. It often isn't pretty.
posted by andrewpcone at 11:45 AM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


sorry, are you asserting that every participant here was homeless or something?

From the video, there were probably more than 30 students in among the tents. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there might not have been any other place for them to congregate on a moment's notice.
posted by burden at 11:45 AM on February 26, 2016


I'm curious as to how many people in this thread agree with Chu's assertion that the only thing journalists care about are "clicks" and money.

I have been a journalist.

I know many journalists.

It is not a profession one gets into for money.

Or "clicks."
posted by Shepherd at 11:46 AM on February 26, 2016 [14 favorites]


Chu is a fellow who became "famous" for being on Jeopardy and managed, like Ken Jennings, to parlay it into some work. He's not really someone that anyone should go to for authority on this.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:49 AM on February 26, 2016 [12 favorites]


"Any state university president can call a press conference in his or her office, end it at will, and call on taxpayer-paid muscle to evict any journalists who refuse to leave afterwards. This is not particularly controversial, I think. The main difference between that and the situation here, as far as I can tell, is that a university president's office is generally thought of as private space, while a university quad is generally thought of as public space. But perhaps it's worth reflecting on whether there's a reason that a group of students protesting the historical and present treatment of their group might not have a private space that they can retreat to to conduct business in private, and whether allowing them exclusive use of a small bit of public space for a limited period of time might be acceptable."
Any state university student can check out unused meeting space, lecture halls, or workshop classrooms to use as a place to retreat to, or organize in, or hold events that they can police the attendance of. Its not like office space is some kind of unique property of the man that was somehow inaccessible to these protesters. What these students didn't have a right to do was violate the civil rights of the journalist covering the public event they were participating in.
posted by Blasdelb at 11:51 AM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


From the video, there were probably more than 30 students in among the tents. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there might not have been any other place for them to congregate on a moment's notice.

ok, so what exactly are you arguing here for. do you want there to be a legal standard that if there are enough people in one place during a demonstration that it grants them the ability to turn a public space private? or are you arguing purely for a nonlegal journalistic norm that allows demonstrators to exclude the press from public spaces they have an equal legal right to out of deference and respect. i suspect it's the latter, but it honestly just looks like unprincipled flailing in favor of the demonstrators because you identify with them to me. would you argue for this right if it was a congregation of klansmen?
posted by p3on at 11:53 AM on February 26, 2016 [12 favorites]


the practices of "engaged journalism", where there is greater communication and even collaboration between journalists and the communities they are reporting on,

It's like we learned nothing from the embedded journalists in the Iraqi invasion. "Engaged journalism" turns into "bought journalism," and it won't be the left or minorities of any stripe who will have the money to do the buying.

Broadly viewed, the press is part of society's power structure, and it's understandable that protestors may view them as hostile to their cause or to them personally--but the alternative, of abdicating journalistic judgment to the subject, is so much worse.
posted by praemunire at 11:57 AM on February 26, 2016 [15 favorites]


This is weird ethical appeal because you're arguing that we must uphold ethical considerations for criminals and those who commit ethical violations in the same manner we would uphold ethical considerations for those who have not committed such harms and are in a more vulnerable position.

On my end, I'm talking ethics, not law, and I think the requirements of being nice to someone who is standing on your foot are different than the ethics of someone who is standing there doing nothing. And the ethics of someone who is using your vulnerability to get a story that does not have a purpose of furthering human rights and welfare is very different than the ethics of someone who is violating your feelings because you are committing an injustice that should be exposed for the sake of vulnerable who are being harmed or could be harmed.

Yes, situations can change behavioral requirements. That is not inconsistent with ethics which fluctuate given variables- even though harms principles of protecting the vulnerable from harm may remain consistant.
posted by xarnop at 11:59 AM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


ok, so what exactly are you arguing here for. do you want there to be a legal standard that if there are enough people in one place during a demonstration that it grants them the ability to turn a public space private?

By social convention this happens literally every time any group of people sits at a picnic bench at a public park. Is it legal to go over and stand in the middle of some stranger's family while they're having a cookout? Probably, but it is really weird and creepy and might get you arrested for being a pedo if they have young kids and you go around taking pictures of them or something. You have a right to be in a public place - but there are definitely ways to behave in that public space that range from ok to socially unacceptable, to actually illegal.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:59 AM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


She was charged with and plead guilty to assault.

From the linked article:
A complaint filed by Mr. Schierbecker said that “by grabbing his camera with her hand and attempting to knock it from his grasp,” Ms. Click had made him “fear he was in danger of immediate physical injury.” The charge could carry a punishment of up to 15 days in jail and a small fine.
That's a completely different thing to the thing which I was responding to.
posted by howfar at 12:01 PM on February 26, 2016


That's weird. The Missouri legislature is considering a bill that would strip scholarships from any athelete that supported a strike. That's a bill that would attempt to punish an entire class of people for exercising their first amendment rights and yet for some reason we're talking about someone who interfered with a photographer.
posted by rdr at 12:01 PM on February 26, 2016 [18 favorites]


She did not plead guilty. She pled not guilty.
posted by aabbbiee at 12:02 PM on February 26, 2016


It may be impossible, but I personally think we can talk both about the individual wrong committed and uphold it's wrong, and also systemic issues involved. I may be wrong, but I see it as opportunity to talk about both and I don't think discussing one necessarily precludes discussing the other unless that is specifically stated.
posted by xarnop at 12:03 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm dumbfounded by the relativism in this thread with regards to a citizen's right to not be assaulted while taking a photograph of a protest on public property.
posted by a complicated history at 12:03 PM on February 26, 2016 [40 favorites]


I should point out that that particular bill has been withdrawn.
posted by rdr at 12:04 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


I personally have not disputed that and I'm not sure others are disputing that anyone should have been assaulted in this situation. I'm not sure I've seen anyone write that. I have spent time talking in discussions about abuse and crime and violence about the origins of these problems and the multifaceted solutions we need to address them. I don't think taking that perspective means you agree with people being assaulted (although I think it fair to discuss whether or not an assault took place as some are doing.)
posted by xarnop at 12:06 PM on February 26, 2016


Here is the complete unedited version of the viral video, which shows that the journalists approached and attempted to push through the circle that was already formed.
posted by aabbbiee at 12:09 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


By social convention this happens literally every time any group of people sits at a picnic bench at a public park. Is it legal to go over and stand in the middle of some stranger's family while they're having a cookout? Probably, but it is really weird and creepy and might get you arrested for being a pedo if they have young kids and you go around taking pictures of them or something. You have a right to be in a public place - but there are definitely ways to behave in that public space that range from ok to socially unacceptable, to actually illegal.

you really think this is comparable to a reporter taking pictures at a public protest? and what in the hell is with the sideways accusations of pedophilia or whatever. this is so disingenuous it's making my head spin. "socially unacceptable/illegal" behavior in public space is threatening to use force to eject someone else from it, which is what click did. this comment is actually making me furious.
posted by p3on at 12:09 PM on February 26, 2016 [29 favorites]


If I were on a search committee for a prof for journalism and that lady and her record were available I would not give her a shot at a job. To teach sillencing journalists as she had done by example is not my idea of what I would ant done in my dept.
posted by Postroad at 12:09 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


roomthreeseventeen: She was charged with and plead guilty to assault.

A Suspension for Melissa Click : "On Monday, Click was charged with third-degree assault, a misdemeanor to which she has pleaded not guilty."

We can't even get the facts right, how could we get the ethics right?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:12 PM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Social conventions are important but they are not the rule of law. On the other hand, people don't take pictures of other people doing boring things very often because they are boring. What the Mizzou protesters were doing was both important and interesting. That makes the discussion of the role of the press in covering their activity all the more important. It's also the reason why the protesters wanted to manage that role -- they weren't being creeped out by the journalists, they felt there was something much more high stakes going on.
posted by fraxil at 12:15 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Any state university student can check out unused meeting space, lecture halls, or workshop classrooms to use as a place to retreat to, or organize in, or hold events that they can police the attendance of.

Is this true? According to this website, student organizations can reserve rooms at the University of Missouri student union but it doesn't say anything about whether any student can do so, and it notes that reservations made within 48 hours of the event are subject to availability. And this website lists recognized University of Missouri student organizations, but doesn't list Concerned Student 1950 among them. So I don't think it's obvious that this group of students could have gotten a room large enough to accommodate all of them when they wanted to talk.

do you want there to be a legal standard that if there are enough people in one place during a demonstration that it grants them the ability to turn a public space private? or are you arguing purely for a nonlegal journalistic norm that allows demonstrators to exclude the press from public spaces they have an equal legal right to out of deference and respect.

Both, and I'm arguing that these sorts of normative standards already apply in public spaces in lots of situations, and nobody thinks journalism is much harmed by it. I mean, if a group of people is playing pickup softball in the park, and a journalist tries to come and stand on home plate to take pictures of the players, most people would agree that the softball players have the superior moral claim to the space, even if they would be wrong to use physical force to try to move the journalist. We recognize that the softball players can turn a little bit of public space semi-private for a little while, and it's not an assault on journalism. If softball players can do it, I don't see why protesters can't.

And I think that nearly all journalists (and people) recognize that it's not always appropriate to do something just because they are legally entitled to do it. I think that the students' request for a space that was temporarily free of media was reasonable, and not so different from what more powerful people do all the time without objection, and I think the photographer made a bad choice here by trying to get into the space despite that request (which does not excuse what was done to him). I think there should be more recognition of that.
posted by burden at 12:22 PM on February 26, 2016


She took a deferred prosecution agreement. Doesn't require her to plead guilty but she has to do 20 hours of community service.
posted by cnelson at 12:24 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


ok, so do you think klansmen should be able to occupy your town square indefinitely and forcibly eject people at will? because that's the unavoidable consequence of what you're arguing for.
posted by p3on at 12:25 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


You know, it's interesting how a group of minority student protestors who had been getting vilified in the media are getting equated with a group of well off white ranchers who were being lionized and members of a hate group.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:35 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


If klansmen are using public space to incite violent or unjust action toward other humans I would say they have already violated human rights with their actions which would make it a different issue.
posted by xarnop at 12:35 PM on February 26, 2016


In the sense that both groups are equally protected by laws concerning free speech and a free press? Nobody is equating the groups except insofar as any protections extended to one group would necessarily extend to the other.
posted by dialetheia at 12:37 PM on February 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


> I mean, if a group of people is playing pickup softball in the park, and a journalist tries to come and stand on home plate to take pictures of the players, most people would agree that the softball players have the superior moral claim to the space, even if they would be wrong to use physical force to try to move the journalist. We recognize that the softball players can turn a little bit of public space semi-private for a little while, and it's not an assault on journalism. If softball players can do it, I don't see why protesters can't.

Two things. First: if you're proposing a legal standard for when a public space has been “turned into” a private space with a temporary expectation of privacy, then you've got to come up with some rules that are clear enough for courts to follow.

Second: even in your hypothetical, it sounds like you still grant that it would be wrong for those softball players to try to move that journalist, so what force would this new legal standard even have?
posted by savetheclocktower at 12:39 PM on February 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


> You know, it's interesting how a group of minority student protestors who had been getting vilified in the media are getting equated with a group of well off white ranchers who were being lionized and members of a hate group.

Wow. Clearly we do not read the same publications, you and I.
posted by savetheclocktower at 12:41 PM on February 26, 2016 [6 favorites]


You're acting like one can't see these two issues as different things that can and should be handled differently.

Or for example to say that the ethics of pushing someone are different if made an offensive or defensive maneuver. Same action, different circumstances, changes the ethics of that action (to many of us).

"In the sense that both groups are equally protected by laws concerning free speech and a free press? Nobody is equating the groups except insofar as any protections extended to one group would necessarily extend to the other."

Ok, but the ethics of the situation may be different than the laws. Laws often offer piss poor recommendations for ethical living. I would say the journalists disrespecting space were in poor form. I would also say elevating the response to that poor form with physical reactions was also poor form and potentially illegal (I don't know laws so I won't debate that part).
posted by xarnop at 12:42 PM on February 26, 2016


"Yes, it's called the First Amendment. Protesters actually have rights under the First Amendment, despite what you might think from the way journalists covered this story."

… so, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. People have a right to associate and peaceably assemble. Is that what you're trying to get at?
posted by klangklangston at 12:45 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


> Ok, but the ethics of the situation may be different than the laws. Laws often offer piss poor recommendations for ethical living. I would say the journalists disrespecting space were in poor form. I would also say elevating the response to that poor form with physical reactions was also poor form and potentially illegal (I don't know laws so I won't debate that part).

That's fine. But it makes for difficulties when discussing this situation, since the law clearly points toward one thing (you can't push someone out of a place they have a right to be, even if they're being rude) and the ethical picture is more muddled (by my viewing, neither side in that video comports themselves particularly well).

Lots of people in this thread seem to be drifting between these two aspects, and some of them are replying to people who have posed purely legal questions.
posted by savetheclocktower at 12:47 PM on February 26, 2016


Something that strikes me as odd is that the actual crime — assaulting a student journalist — was something that Mizzou felt it could handle through the appropriate bureaucratic channels of tenure review. But saying, "Get your fucking hands off of me" when grabbed by a cop at the parade, that's what was "appalling" and required she be fired immediately?

It had seemed like Click's contretemps had played out in a pretty reasonable way: she'd apologized; the protestors had recognized the own-goal and done better media training; the photog had accepted the apology and moved on — the system worked! So it's weird to see her get fired now in contravention of the established procedures.

The conversation here has reminded me that even otherwise smart people can be really dumb about press and privacy rights though.
posted by klangklangston at 12:52 PM on February 26, 2016 [8 favorites]


"Both, and I'm arguing that these sorts of normative standards already apply in public spaces in lots of situations, and nobody thinks journalism is much harmed by it. I mean, if a group of people is playing pickup softball in the park, and a journalist tries to come and stand on home plate to take pictures of the players, most people would agree that the softball players have the superior moral claim to the space, even if they would be wrong to use physical force to try to move the journalist. We recognize that the softball players can turn a little bit of public space semi-private for a little while, and it's not an assault on journalism. If softball players can do it, I don't see why protesters can't. "

This analogy fails to account for a pretty significant distinction: The softball players weren't trying to keep the journalist from taking pictures of anyone on the diamond. The "home plate" detail is specious, and if a pickup softball team tried to prevent someone in the stands from taking pictures, or even someone from taking pictures of people in the dugout from outside the dugout, they'd be more likely to be recognized as acting unreasonably. Likewise, since this wasn't a softball field, softball players on a college quad trying to keep a fellow student from being within the space of their game at all would be recognized as excluding people who had a reasonable right to be on that quad from enjoying it.

And the point of analogies with the Klan or Freeman is that it's begging the question to assume a rule based on an outcome that you're sympathetic to, e.g. the protests, and that considering the rule as applied to a group you're not sympathetic to can help illuminate whether or not it's the rule that matters rather than the group it's applied to.

But then, I recognize that there are a lot of people who don't think that the Nazis should have been allowed to march in Skokie.
posted by klangklangston at 1:00 PM on February 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


considering the rule as applied to a group you're not sympathetic to can help illuminate whether or not it's the rule that matters rather than the group it's applied to.

I agree that this is a useful modernist philosophical technique, i.e. it is a symmetry argument, but I also agree with the concern that when someone uses an example that in the process activates people's sense of identity, it's not just distracting and counterproductive but--for marginalized groups--also will be construed as another example of experiencing structural prejudice. "The point" is also something that is received by others, etc.
posted by polymodus at 1:17 PM on February 26, 2016


It's part of a journalists job to go where they're not wanted. It's part of their job to stay when people tell them to go.
posted by quarsan at 1:18 PM on February 26, 2016 [17 favorites]


It's part of a journalists job to go where they're not wanted. It's part of their job to stay when people tell them to go.

They're also supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:30 PM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


ok, so do you think klansmen should be able to occupy your town square indefinitely and forcibly eject people at will? because that's the unavoidable consequence of what you're arguing for.

It all depends on the specific facts - I don't see any slippery slope here. If the Klan wants to have a private picnic for a couple of hours in a shelter in the forest preserve, I think they should be allowed to do that, and they should be able to call on forest preserve police to remove any uninvited attendees, including unwanted journalists, from the shelter. If they want to occupy all of the land surrounding a polling place all day on Election Day and have said that only white people may cross through it to get to the polling place, that's different and the police should intervene to make sure that everyone has safe access to the space around the polling place. I don't think it's possible to formulate one rule that will cover all situations, but relevant factors might include the following:

- How many people are involved in the group seeking to make public space semi-private?
- How much public space is involved?
- Who was there first?
- How long will the public space be made semi-private?
- Has the space been previously designated for the kind of activity that the group wants to engage in?
- Is other similarly-good public space available for other people?
- Are the people on the semi-private space going to be doing anything that causes harm to other people?

I don't think I'm proposing anything radical here - it seems like the application of factors like these is used to make public space semi-private all over the country every day. Maybe you think that the balance of factors like these favors the photographer's right to shoot from amongst the tents; I disagree, but I can see that as a reasonable position. What I don't think is reasonable is a blanket statement that public space is open to everyone on equal terms all the time.
posted by burden at 1:30 PM on February 26, 2016


You know, it's interesting how a group of minority student protestors who had been getting vilified in the media are getting equated with a group of well off white ranchers who were being lionized and members of a hate group.

Yeah but those ranchers earnestly believe that they are being persecuted. My assessment of what they represent versus black students at the University of Fucking Missouri is completely the same as your own, and I think there is value in these analyses of power and privilege. But I also think the expectation that some people seem to have that such analyses should be sufficient to sort on who is or is not allowed to do what is not particularly tenable, because there is nothing close to a universally recognized authority on who is oppressing who.
posted by atoxyl at 1:33 PM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


That said I also agree completely with this take:

That's weird. The Missouri legislature is considering a bill that would strip scholarships from any athelete that supported a strike. That's a bill that would attempt to punish an entire class of people for exercising their first amendment rights and yet for some reason we're talking about someone who interfered with a photographer.
posted by atoxyl at 1:33 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


The Missouri legislature is considering a bill that would strip scholarships from any athelete that supported a strike.

As was stated upthread, that bill was withdrawn.
posted by a complicated history at 1:38 PM on February 26, 2016


Withdrawn only because it pissed off the NCAA.
posted by aabbbiee at 1:43 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


At least three bills per week are filed in some state legislature solely because an idiot is trying to make a point. It doesn't take much to introduce a bill. I don't take a state bill seriously until it is being considered by the whole body of the legislature, and sometimes not even then.
posted by savetheclocktower at 1:55 PM on February 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


What I don't think is reasonable is a blanket statement that public space is open to everyone on equal terms all the time.

I wonder that the reason we have the discourse this way is the capitalistic culture we live in. When public space the concept is so rigidly oversimplified, it only serves private interests. Public space is a common good, and thus can be exploited by inappropriate usage, including overuse. Legal regulations are socially decided, while people tend to align with current law as far as they feel they value other commons such as the environment, the internet, etc. That's where the interest in the "purely legal" versus the interest beyond it arises. Both are valid, but neither can stand alone.
posted by polymodus at 2:04 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


They're also supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

Wait what? I can think of several words for people who see it as their charge to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," and none of them is "journalist."
posted by andrewpcone at 2:37 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Well journalists are human. I see no reason why their job should allow them to violate compassionate ethics and expect no one to call them on it like anyone. If you're going to use your job as an excuse to be a bad person (my job calls for me to hurt people!) then either you or your profession should be called out for it.

I see no "great good" of upholding the social encouragement for journalists to use their skills to make things worse for already vulnerable groups of people. It is NOT their job to play dumb to the nuance of the situations they're working in and pretend they can't tell the difference between human right abusers asking for secrecy to promote human rights abuses and marginalized people asking for some space to deal with heavy emotions.

The two are not the same thing and hate speech and organizing groups to promote hate and threatening behavior should not be given the same protections as other forms of speech and organizing in public or group spaces.
posted by xarnop at 2:43 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Harassing the press requires political calculation. Shadowing reporters and physically denying them access to space allows a group to author the reporter's experience of the situation. It also has costs, in that to create the privileged space you have to do things to the reporter which will also color their perspective.

You can see this done right in the beginning of the unedited video where it becomes a passive aggressive scrum mediated in some quasi-legal space between the reporters and the wall, "You touched me!", "No you touched me!" No one comes off as looking particularly good, but the image that the students want to project gets through, "We are standing in solidarity to protect those who demand change." The most outrage the reporter can drum up is something akin to the tepid legal argument that's happening here.

Authority figures can be useful allies in this regard because people may be more likely to defer to them, even when there is no legal or even ethical reason to. Even if no deference is given, acting in certain ways toward an authority figure will be seen as an unacceptable escalation of the situation in ways that it would not otherwise.

Where Click goes from good ally to bad ally is when she compromises the lasting image of the event by making the escalation from resistance to straight up intimidation.

Ironically, this also illustrates one of the most important reasons that you would want to create a privileged space. One of the great advantages institutions have is that they can control access to their constituents. Not everyone who can be useful at a protest is someone who will behave well in front of the press.
posted by ethansr at 2:50 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


I mean, if your argument is simply that journalists don't get general compassion-free passes, then sure. I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.

I think the point of disagreement here is that some people (like me) think that the emotional harm the group suffered as a result of the dude with the camera is small compared to the harm in setting a precedent that journalists may be prevented from filming protests because the protestors don't want them to.

Maybe you don't agree. But I'm certainly not saying "journalists never have to be compassionate" just as you are not saying "we should place no value on freedom of expression."
posted by andrewpcone at 2:54 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Wait what? I can think of several words for people who see it as their charge to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," and none of them is "journalist."

It's a pretty famous line about journalism. It's actually something of an out of context quote but plenty of people have gone into journalism who take the popular paraphrase to heart.
posted by atoxyl at 2:54 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


It all depends on the specific facts - I don't see any slippery slope here. If the Klan wants to have a private picnic for a couple of hours in a shelter in the forest preserve, I think they should be allowed to do that, and they should be able to call on forest preserve police to remove any uninvited attendees, including unwanted journalists, from the shelter. (emphasis mine)

Keep in mind, none of that was done by the protesters. And indeed, there are laws against harassment, too, from which journalists are not exempt.

If Click had merely stood in front of the journalist chanting and waving her arms, she would've accomplished her goal, none of us would know her name, she'd still have her job, and 20 years from now, she'd still be telling the story of her protesting heroics way back in '15.

But no. She committed a crime of passion. Happens all the time.

And ... wait for it ... we live in a society where there is equal protection under the law.

/ducks to avoid slings and arrows
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:59 PM on February 26, 2016 [8 favorites]


And in the meantime, the story about Melissa Click has become a distractor from the real issues that face MU (and every university campus)

Yeah, this.

On a scale of 1 to 10, what Click did was maybe a 2. And the problem was acknowledged and solved almost immediately.

Meanwhile, the problem of entrenched racism on campus and in our state and in our state government is is like a 20 on the scale. And no one is doing a goddamned thing about it.

Except using the Click issue--or whatever else happens to be available--to distract attention from it, of course.
posted by flug at 3:03 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Chu's hit piece is horrible.

Arthur Chu is a hair's breadth away from being a caricature of an "Authoritarian Progressive". Whatever stance America's least favorite Jeopardy champion takes on an issue I'll probably take the opposite just to avoid being associated with the likes of him. Melissa Click certainly deserved to be fired, there's no way she is qualified to be associated with any media or journalism program when she doesn't grasp the basic fact that students, journalists (and student-journalists) have rights that she, as an agent of the state, cannot abridge.
posted by MikeMc at 3:15 PM on February 26, 2016 [11 favorites]


Point of information: Click is not a professor of journalism. She is/was a professor of Communication which is in the College of Arts and Science and not in the School of Journalism. She is not a "journalism professor."
posted by cushie at 3:21 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


On a scale of 1 to 10, what Click did was maybe a 2. And the problem was acknowledged and solved almost immediately.

Meanwhile, the problem of entrenched racism on campus and in our state and in our state government is is like a 20 on the scale. And no one is doing a goddamned thing about it.


This thread is a case-in-point of why what Click did is actually a lot more than a 2. Because even Metafilter can't figure out how to handle this.

Entrenched, structural, social problems are huge and complicated. We are working on them constantly; making strides forward, being beaten backwards, and having the occasional misstep. What Click did was HUGE misstep, so much so that it derails the entire conversation.

She fucked up so badly that it ruined the conversation for everyone. Sure, go ahead and blame the oppressors, but that solves nothing. In the future, we need to not do shit like this, so future conversations don't get ruined as well.
posted by special agent conrad uno at 3:34 PM on February 26, 2016 [12 favorites]


It "derails" the conversation because people were looking for something to derail it. Because we have a really, really hard time talking about race in this country, and people will look everywhere for an out.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:38 PM on February 26, 2016 [9 favorites]


I totally understand why Click did what she did. She'd been listening to students of color in her office or elsewhere talk for hours on end about how unsafe their campus was, how unsafe their country was, for young Black people and other folks of color.

She wanted to protect them when they asked for a moment of privacy, of peace, after a huge amount of public protesting had already been done.

I can totally imagine doing what she did (although I hope to the god I don't believe in that I wouldn't have asked for "muscle", because that is massively corny and unwise); I know that my students are already targeted by people in power, I know how unsafe they (reasonably) feel, and I can imagine some of them being inexperienced with media coverage. I would try to protect them.

(I'm all for journalism; I'd prefer that journalists exert this kind of energy at BoT meetings -- that they use their power to, you know, photograph up, not down.)

Maybe I should be fired for doing what Click did, too, although I am tenured... they could try to make a case for moral turpitude and whatnot, and maybe firing would be appropriate, I don't know. The rules weren't made for times like these.

But they should have at least followed the rules of due process that were made even for times very unlike these.
posted by allthinky at 4:18 PM on February 26, 2016


Yeah, all they wanted was a moment of privacy in a public space. That's not insane at all.

And what better way to protect people of color than calling for "muscle" to physically move a person of color.
posted by jpe at 4:23 PM on February 26, 2016 [5 favorites]


Because we have a really, really hard time talking about race in this country, and people will look everywhere for an out.

This whole thing is about race. If you mean "saying exactly what I want others to say" by "talking about race," then I suppose you're right.
posted by jpe at 4:24 PM on February 26, 2016


Of all the stories the media could have enlarged from this day, they chose Click. It suggests the media cant let itself fairly portray a successful protest, particularly if black people are involved. The message 'protest can succeed' might get out, and we cant have that.

That said, Click's snarky response to the guy asserting his rights really sticks in my craw. She's a Communcations expert, why not engage him on the point ? Unless this was the nth time that she'd found herself having the conversation that day, I cant see why she didnt give him the benefit of her education.

Also, isnt the guy a student journalist ? We should expect him to make a mistake on something like a relatively refined form of Journalistic ethics. He doesn't know what he's doing yet. He's still learning.

The whole thing was a bit of a storm in a teacup until the republicans decided that this was a teachable moment. Thats the message I take from it.
posted by devious truculent and unreliable at 4:25 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Once she called for 'muscle' it got serious. had this reporter been beaten or worse Click would be facing more than just a job change.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 4:28 PM on February 26, 2016


had this reporter been beaten or worse

Yes, but he wasn't. Nothing has changed in the cultures of journalism or protest since this incident. No-one is taking any cues from it.
posted by devious truculent and unreliable at 4:35 PM on February 26, 2016


Also, isnt the guy a student journalist ?

This is a common mistake being repeated often: no. From the Chronicle link in the FPP:
Mr. Schierbecker was not a journalism student or working for a news outlet.

Mr. Schierbecker identified himself as a member of the media when he encountered Ms. Click at the November protest; indeed, that identification seemed to be the pretext for her effort to get him thrown out of the protesters’ encampment. In the aftermath of the incident Mr. Schierbecker was frequently identified as a student journalist by media outlets, including The Chronicle.

But the report paints Mr. Schierbecker, a junior at the university, as barely affiliated with any news organization. He told investigators he had initially planned on posting his videos of the protest to Wikipedia.

Mr. Schierbecker told investigators that he had once been a staff photographer at The Maneater, an independent student news outlet. He said he had submitted articles, but none had been published. After receiving many inquiries about its affiliation with the author of the video, the students running The Maneater wrote to Mr. Schierbecker telling him that he did not, in fact, work there.

Mr. Schierbecker apparently did not seem like a journalist to Ms. Click. In interviews with investigators, the professor said that when Mr. Schierbecker asserted he was a member of the media, she did not believe him, creating mistrust that charged the rest of the confrontation.
had this reporter been beaten or worse

I think it's important to emphasize this point: the student was not a reporter, and simply claimed to be "from the media." Part of Click's reaction was that this particular student was obviously (to her) not a reporter, but rather a student gawking at the protest.

She's a Communcations expert

This one is a bit pedantic, but she's a communication expert. "Communications" is what PR people do; "Communication" is an academic discipline.
posted by LooseFilter at 4:50 PM on February 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


We're all reporters. Going to school to be a reporter is a bonus but it doesn't define a reporter.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 4:54 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


Going to school to be a reporter is a bonus but it doesn't define a reporter.

A degree has nothing to do with it. A reporter is typically defined as a person with a formal affiliation with a professional media outlet, and someone who earns at least part of their income by, you know, reporting. Otherwise, you're just a bystander or maybe a witness.

Words mean things.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:03 PM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


This is 2016, the information age. We're all reporters.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:05 PM on February 26, 2016


We're all reporters.

Just like we're all experts because I read an article about that thing one time.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:10 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


Part of Click's reaction was that this particular student was obviously (to her) not a reporter, but rather a student gawking at the protest.

No, in the video, she clearly says, "can I get some muscle over here to get rid of this reporter." She definitely considered him to be a reporter.
posted by yesster at 5:24 PM on February 26, 2016


This is the problem with sarcasm in speech. If this was in text she could put the air quotes around "reporter" or add an /s tag.
posted by Bobicus at 5:27 PM on February 26, 2016 [2 favorites]


No

While you're certainly entitled to your own interpretation, the information in the Chronicle article is taken from the official final Cave report to the University of Missouri Board of Curators. That is, this version of events is part of the official record accepted by the Board of Curators.
posted by LooseFilter at 5:34 PM on February 26, 2016


(I didn't realize it was sarcasm.)
posted by yesster at 5:51 PM on February 26, 2016


Yeah, all they wanted was a moment of privacy in a public space. That's not insane at all.

First, could we not use "insane" as a term of derision. It was certainly unwise.

Second, these are college students ... they make mistakes all the time. Sometimes you want to protect them anyway.
posted by allthinky at 5:53 PM on February 26, 2016


" they make mistakes all the time"

They're not fragile pieces of glass. He wasn't going in there to throw rocks at them.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:08 PM on February 26, 2016 [4 favorites]


While you're certainly entitled to your own interpretation, the information in the Chronicle article is taken from the official final Cave report to the University of Missouri Board of Curators.

What possesses people to post seemingly important documents that aren't searchable via ctrl-f? I'm sure there's something of value in there, but I highly doubt many people are going to slog through 29 pages to find it.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 6:21 PM on February 26, 2016


Just like we're all experts because I read an article about that thing one time.

If he was trying to document the moment for Wikipedia then I'd say he was trying to perform a legitimate journalistic act. In a public space. Perfectly within his right.

Are we going to litigate the "bloggers aren't serious journalists" thing again? Because I can probably find some MeFi posts/threads on the subject that would be sympathetic to the guy.

Look, people can feel passionately that the protesters had valid grievances AND feel that Click fucked up big and should be held accountable for it. The smart and principled thing to do would be to admit the latter so that it doesn't distract from the former instead of digging in and trying to rationalize shitty behavior as justifiable in service of the cause.
posted by echocollate at 8:03 PM on February 26, 2016 [10 favorites]


"Non-journalism non-professor performs non-crime on non-journalist!" Hmmm it's no Man Bites Dog but I'll take it, lets DO SOME TAKES
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:58 PM on February 26, 2016 [1 favorite]


It had seemed like Click's contretemps had played out in a pretty reasonable way: she'd apologized; the protestors had recognized the own-goal and done better media training; the photog had accepted the apology and moved on — the system worked! So it's weird to see her get fired now in contravention of the established procedures.

The conversation here has reminded me that even otherwise smart people can be really dumb about press and privacy rights though.


THIS THIS THIS

If I hated the protestors and wanted to see them fail, then I would encourage behavior like Click's. The nicest thing that could be said of her "muscle" nonsense was that she did something stupid in the spur of the moment. None of the other attempts to see defend her, or to portray her as being any more sympathetic, hold any water - indeed, instead they both distract and force people to adopt all kinds of obviously laughable positions. It's utterly goofy.

Sidenote: I was at a protest many moons ago at which an injured protestor did not want to be filmed leaving the space. They handled this smartly: one person announced, "a person has had an accident, they're just being walked to to the ambulatory center (maybe 200ft away), please respect their privacy", and then as they were being walked out (with a coat over their head), a handful of people whooped and hollered in a purposefully distracting fashion, so as to obscure that person's exit.

It was a clearly communicated request, the whooping worked to keep away randos, and the coat was an obvious practical measure. Nobody was authoritarian enough to threaten anybody, or stupid enough to think that that would have worked anyhow.

Shadowing reporters and physically denying them access to space allows a group to author the reporter's experience of the situation.

Except when it doesn't! This can backfire even under the best of circumstances.
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:48 AM on February 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


"This whole thing is about race. If you mean "saying exactly what I want others to say" by "talking about race," then I suppose you're right."

Le eye roll.

Race informs a lot of this conversation, and is a large part of the context, but pretending that this means that everyone is primarily talking about this as a racial issue is absurd, leaving aside whether or not everyone should be discussing every part of this incident as a racial issue (e.g. the quasi-disingenuous discussions of Click's whiteness versus Tai being an Asian person of color).

"I think it's important to emphasize this point: the student was not a reporter, and simply claimed to be "from the media." Part of Click's reaction was that this particular student was obviously (to her) not a reporter, but rather a student gawking at the protest.

One of the things that is frustrating is that there were two photographers: Tim Tai, who is the photographer whom Click is filmed accosting, and Mark Schierbecker, the person recording Click's interaction with Tai. Tai is a student photographer and was on assignment from ESPN. Schierbecker was acting as an independent journalist. Tai accepted the apology and moved on; Schierbecker filed the criminal complaint.

Click should know better — part of the expansion of access to production media means that far more people are effectively journalists and are or should be protected under journalist shields. Similar to art, too often people conflate "bad journalist" with "not a journalist."

"Just like we're all experts because I read an article about that thing one time."

Hey, you and the Chicago PD agree that no one should be able to record them doing their jobs because regular people can't be journalists!
posted by klangklangston at 4:12 PM on February 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm a Columbia, MO native with a bunch of friends and family still in the area and on the staff at the University of Missouri.

My friend (a journalism professor at MU and former reporter) has tried valiantly to describe though social media what was going on on Carnahan that day - but the narrative of "faculty member tried to squelch free speech" is too hard to derail. People love to feel self-righteous about that. So much. The context -- that this incident with Click came at the end of a very long day, with members of the media descending on campus, without any visible credentials, getting in the face of any student of color they could find -- matters. If you think the idea of Click acting in loco parentis to try and give these kids a bit of privacy is "laughable," think of how you would feel if your own kid was there.

But yes, she made a mistake. She went too far. She apologized. She resigned her courtesy appointment at the school of journalism (her actual appointment is in media studies I think - a different department).

Further sanctions and termination are not up to the Board of Curators by any interpretation of faculty governance procedures. To make a political point the curators have opened up MU to a wrongful termination lawsuit that will likely cost the state millions. If I were a Missouri taxpayer, I would be pretty annoyed by that alone.

Also, I liked this morning's op-ed about this quite a lot.
posted by pantarei70 at 7:56 AM on February 28, 2016 [5 favorites]


Concerned Student 1950, a 32-minute documentary on the student protests at the University of Missouri last fall, has been released online by Field of Vision. The film was shot by three MU students, covering the racist acts and context that prompted the protests as well as the fallout.

The film can be viewed online in its entirety here.
posted by aabbbiee at 2:08 PM on March 22, 2016


« Older I understand that there is a writer named Jonathan...   |   7. Tattoos of memes are a thing now Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments