- A Northwestern student paper apologized after activists critiqued it for covering a public protest.
- Critics specifically focused on a reporter who tweeted photos from the protest, and other reporters using the school’s directory to contact sources.
- Several outlets and journalists have spoken up saying student reporters should not have apologized for doing their jobs, as they were just doing what was required to cover the protest.
- The Dean of Northwestern’s Journalism School has also defended the student reporters, saying they were following ethical standards and should not have to apologize for that.
Northwestern Paper Publishes Apology
Reporters are speaking out after a Northwestern University student newspaper apologized for how it covered a recent public protest.
When former Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke at the school’s campus on November 5, The Daily Northwestern sent reporters to cover his speech, as well as the protests surrounding it.
According to The New York Times, protesters were pushing through the back of the building. Police tried to stop them from entering but ultimately failed. This series of events was documented by one of the reporters, Colin Boyle, who is a photographer for The Daily.
Some of the activists attending the protest disagreed with the paper’s coverage of the events, particularly the photography. Boyle posted his photos to Twitter in a move some found to be inappropriate. One student depicted in the photos referred to it as “trauma porn.”
After facing this backlash from protesters, The Daily published an editorial on Sunday largely apologizing for their coverage.
“We recognize that we contributed to the harm students experienced, and we wanted to apologize for and address the mistakes that we made that night — along with how we plan to move forward,” the piece, signed by eight editors said.
They also noted that some saw the photos taken to be “retraumatizing and invasive.”
“Those photos have since been taken down,” the editorial continued. “On one hand, as the paper of record for Northwestern, we want to ensure students, administrators and alumni understand the gravity of the events that took place Tuesday night. However, we decided to prioritize the trust and safety of students who were photographed.”
The piece also addressed student reporters using the student directory to contact sources for the article. They said they would no longer continue this practice because it is an “invasion of privacy” and promised to find a new way to reach out to sources.
“Going forward, we are working on setting guidelines for source outreach, social media and covering marginalized groups,” the piece said.
Reporters Speak Out
This editorial ended up getting attention on both a local and national level. News outlets and journalists alike made comments saying that the student paper should not have published this piece because the student journalists were just doing their job.
“The Daily is apologizing for posting photographs of protesters at a public demonstration. In what world is that “invasive?” the Chicago Sun-Times‘ editorial board said. “The real concern, for anybody who cares about the state of our free society, should be quite the opposite. The real concern should be the frequent efforts by government to keep journalists and protesters far apart to tamp down voices of dissent.”
They also defended students using the directory as a method to contact sources.
“Requesting an interview, via text or any other polite means, is not an ‘invasion of privacy.’ Not even in the world of campus safe spaces,” the piece continued. “It’s a request for an interview, to which anybody can say no.”
“It was sort of grovelingly apologetic for doing the sin of journalism,” he said. “They committed journalism by asking questions of students, contacting students for comment, publishing on the record quotes from people, and taking photographs of a public protest from a public event. And that is all just totally proper.”
A Huffington Post news editor, Saba Hamedy, approached the situation from a sympathetic angle, calling it a learning opportunity.
The Dean of Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism, Charles Whitaker, published a statement of his own, defending the student’s right to report on the world around them and condemning others for pressuring them into apologizing for doing so.
“The coverage by The Daily Northwestern of the protests stemming from the recent appearance on campus by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was in no way beyond the bounds of fair, responsible journalism,” he wrote. “I am deeply troubled by the vicious bullying and badgering that the students responsible for that coverage have endured for the ‘sin’ of doing journalism.”
“It is naïve, not to mention wrong-headed, to declare, as many of our student activists have, that The Daily staff and other student journalists had somehow violated the personal space of the protestors by reporting on the proceedings, which were conducted in the open and were designed, ostensibly, to garner attention,” he continued.
As for The Daily’s editorial itself, he called it “heartfelt, though not well-considered.”
“I understand why The Daily editors felt the need to issue their mea culpa. They were beat into submission by the vitriol and relentless public shaming they have been subjected to since the Sessions stories appeared,” he said. “I think it is a testament to their sensitivity and sense of community responsibility that they convinced themselves that an apology would effect a measure of community healing.”
The Other Side of the Aisle
Though, not everyone thought the apology was out of line. Some did think The Daily needed to address what happened.
One student said this showed that journalists often “don’t care about people, they care about stories and headlines.”
Reporter Karen Kho pointed out that many reporters were getting upset about this industry-related situation, but don’t speak as much about other problems in the field of journalism, “such the lack of diversity in their newsrooms, declines in public trust, or how reporting can further hurt underrepresented communities.”
Others also pointed out the school’s history when it comes to protests.
What the Students Involved Are Saying
Some of the student journalists involved in the story also spoke about the events.
Troy Closson, the paper’s editor in chief, published a Twitter thread partially justifying the editorial but also acknowledging over-correction.
He added that balancing this role with the knowledge that the paper has historically not treated students of color well has been a challenge. Closson said he appreciates people raising their voices about their coverage and said the staff is learning to navigate the space of being student journalists.
Boyle spoke to The Washington Post about what was going through his mind as he took photos at the protests.
“These are my peers, these are people that I might have class with,” he told the paper. “If something happened, God forbid, I was the only camera that was non-police-owned in that area, to my knowledge.”
On Twitter, he said that he has reflected a lot on what it means to be a journalist.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Chicago Tribune)
Florida Shootout Involving Hijacked UPS Truck Ends With 4 Dead
- Two armed robbers hijacked a UPS truck and held the driver hostage in an attempt to escape police on Thursday.
- The police chase ended with a shootout that left both suspects, the UPS driver, and another civilian dead.
- Many are condemning the police officers for their actions and blaming them for the death of the innocent victims.
Armed Robbery Leads to Shootout
Two suspects and two civilians were killed in gunfire on Thursday after an armed robbery attempt led to a violent shootout.
The suspects, identified as Lamar Alexander and Ronnie Jerome Hill, held up a jewelry store in Coral Gables, Florida yesterday afternoon. Gunfire was exchanged between the thieves and a store employee, and police arrived shortly after.
One female store employee was injured and taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital, NBC Miami reported.
The suspects escaped in a van but ditched their getaway vehicle about a mile away from the jewelry store. They then hijacked a UPS truck, holding the driver hostage at gunpoint, local authorities said at a press conference Thursday night.
Police chased the robbers across two counties. Approximately an hour after the UPS driver was abducted, the pursuit ended with a shootout at a crowded intersection in Miramar. A total of 19 officers from five different agencies were firing at the UPS truck.
Videos from the deadly exchange have been posted on Twitter, showing police officers crouching behind civilian vehicles in standstill traffic as they shot at the truck. The gunfire is thundering and consistent.
The two suspects were fatally shot in the crossfire. The UPS driver was also killed, as well as another innocent bystander sitting in her car.
When George Piro, the special agent who heads the FBI’s Miami Field Office, was asked if it’s possible that the civilians were killed by bullets fired by police officers, he remained vague.
“As I mentioned earlier, it is very very early on in the investigation and it would be completely inappropriate to discuss that,” Piro said. “We have just began to process the crime scene. As you can imagine this is going to be a very complicated crime scene.”
The UPS driver has been identified by his family as Frank Ordoñez, a 27-year-old father of two young girls. According to his sister, Sara Ordoñez, he had just been promoted at work for the holiday season.
“He was excited because he was saving up to buy an apartment, a home,” Sara Ordoñez told the New York Times. “We didn’t have it so easy, so he wanted to give the best for his daughters. Everything he would do was for his daughters.”
A GoFundMe has been created for Ordoñez’s family.
UPS released a statement on their official Twitter page addressing the loss of their employee.
“We are deeply saddened to learn a UPS service provider was a victim of this senseless act of violence,” it said.
The second slain civilian has not yet been publicly identified.
Criticism of Police Action
An interview with Joe Merino, Frank Ordoñez’s stepfather, revealed that he blames the death of his son on the police’s “negligence” and “disregard for life for a victim.”
“We’ve all seen hostage situations where local police surround the house, SWAT comes in, there’s a negotiator… and everyone walks away alive,” Merino said. “They didn’t give Frank that opportunity.”
Many others condemned the decisions made by law enforcement, calling for the officers to be held responsible for the civilian deaths.
See what others are saying: (CBS) (NPR) (Washington Post)
Nearly 700,000 People to Lose Food Stamp Aid Under New Policy
- A new rule was finalized on Wednesday that tightens work restrictions for the federal food stamp program.
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 688,000 people will be cut from the program when the rule takes effect next year.
- Those in favor of the change argue that it will push unemployed individuals to find jobs, while critics say it will hurt them more than it will help them.
Trump administration finalized a new rule that could remove almost 700,000 people from the federal food stamp program. The rule, announced in a press release on Wednesday, creates stricter work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) final rule promotes work for able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 without dependents,” the press release said.
Under current regulations, this demographic can receive three months of SNAP benefits throughout a three year period, unless they work or undergo professional training for at least 20 hours a week.
States have had the ability to waive this time limit to account for economic turbulence, and counties with unemployment rates as low as 2.5% were eligible for these remissions. The new rule will make 6% the minimum unemployment rate to qualify for these waivers, according to the Washington Post.
It will take effect on April 1, 2020.
Impact on Americans
While the USDA originally estimated that up to 750,000 people would be cut from SNAP with this change, now they have adjusted that number to 688,000.
The finalized regulation is the first of three proposed measures to limit access to the federal food stamp program. A new study by the Urban Institute found that if the other two rules are approved, nearly 4 million people would lose access to food benefits.
After the new rule was proposed in February, there was an abundance of public comments imploring the administration not to go through with it.
But the USDA was not swayed and held strong in their argument that SNAP should be a form of temporary assistance instead of a long-term lifestyle.
“Government can be a powerful force for good, but government dependency has never been the American dream,” said Sonny Perdue, Secretary of Agriculture. “We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand.”
Those who support the rule are optimistic that it will push unemployed individuals to find jobs.
“The changes reflect the belief that more Americans can enter and reenter the workforce,” Brandon Lipps, the USDA’s Deputy Under Secretary, told the Washington Post. “So they can know the dignity of work.”
Critics of the change were extremely disappointed upon the news of the rule’s finalization, deeming it a step in the wrong direction.
“The Trump administration is driving the vulnerable into hunger just as the Christmas season approaches,” Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said on the floor Wednesday. “It is heartless. It is cruel. It exposes a deep and shameful cruelness and hypocrisy in this administration.”
Rep. Marcia L. Fudge, chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee’s subcommittee on nutrition, released a press statement on Wednesday after hearing the news.
“The Administration refuses to take an honest look at the people they are targeting with this rule and what challenges they face that contribute to their hunger…” she said. “…Instead of considering hungry individuals and their unique struggles and needs, the Department has chosen to paint them with the broadest brush, demonizing them as lazy and undeserving.”
See what others are saying: (New York Times) (NPR) (NBC)
Melania Trump Blasts Law Professor for Dropping Son’s Name in Impeachment Testimony Joke
- Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan made a joke referencing President Donald Trump’s son in her impeachment hearing testimony on Wednesday.
- Melania Trump criticized Karlan on Twitter for bringing her child into a political matter.
- Some condemned Karlan while others thought her wordplay was harmless.
- Many Twitter users called the FLOTUS hypocritical for defending her child but staying silent on her husband’s treatment of other minors, including teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg and migrant children experiencing inhumane treatment at the border.
Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor, dropped a controversial joke while testifying in the ongoing impeachment hearing against President Donald Trump on Wednesday.
While explaining the difference between the POTUS and a king, she used a play on words with the name of his teenage son, Barron.
“The constitution says there can be no titles of nobility,” Karlan said. “So while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”
Karlan’s joke received a scattering of laughter around the room, including a chuckle from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who posed the question of how the president compares to royalty.
Melania Trump took to Twitter to defend her son, condemning Karlan’s name-dropping comment.
“A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics,” the first lady wrote. “Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.”
Karlan was put on blast by other prominent figures for her mention of the president’s son. Vice President Mike Pence called her joke a “new low.”
Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida who strongly supports the president, chastised her directly on the floor Wednesday.
“Let me also suggest that when you invoke the President’s son’s name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument,” he said. “It makes you look mean.”
The Trump campaign released an official statement on the topic.
“Only in the mind of crazed liberals is it funny to drag a 13-year-old into the impeachment nonsense,” National Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said.
Later in the day, Prof. Karlan apologized for her remarks, but not without mentioning that she wishes Donald Trump would also admit to his faults.
“I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that,” she said during her testimony. “I wish the president would apologize obviously for the things that he’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that.”
Defense of the Professor
While some were outraged by Karlan’s play on words, others spoke up to defend her, deeming the joke harmless.
It was NOT the minor child she was referencing.— Linda Kemp (@LindaLarsonKemp) December 5, 2019
It was INSTEAD the father’s delusions of royal grandeur in his naming of the child—the monarchical mindset & legacy the Framers were establishing specific guardrails against.
Barron you’re not the issue. Your dad’s the issue.
Some Twitter users criticized the FLOTUS for being quick to defend her own son but staying silent on her husband’s treatment of other minors, including teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg and migrant children experience inhumane treatment at the border.
Your husband attacked a 16 year old climate activist for her views on climate change. Your husband separates children from their parents at the border and locks them in cages. #BeBestMyAss #shutupmelania— PitStainPeter (@PitStainPeter) December 5, 2019
Hey @FLOTUS nothing negative was said about your son, I watched every minute. If you are so concerned with minor children then why haven’t you done anything about #KidsInCages! This rule applies to all kids everywhere not just your son!— FloridaDem (@MarilouGeorge) December 5, 2019