The Crimson reached out to an ICE spokesperson after the protest’s conclusion and did not provide names, immigration statuses, or extended quotes of those who criticized the government agency....
Marion Davis, director of communications for the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, said... “I know the Crimson acted on a desire for fairness, but I have learned [through] experience that getting both sides isn't always what is fair, especially when one side has already made its views well known through the megaphones of government,” Davis wrote....
Society of Professional Journalists President Patricia Gallagher Newberry said it is “wholly appropriate” that The Crimson contacted ICE to respond to criticisms of the agency. “You’re not calling ICE to call out an individual person who might be in our country without the documentation required by ICE. You're simply asking for it to respond in a holistic way to the Abolish ICE Movement,” Gallagher said....
२३ ऑक्टोबर, २०१९
Harvard students rise up against the student newspaper for covering both sides of a controversy.
I'm reading "Harvard Student Groups Condemn The Crimson’s Coverage of Abolish ICE Rally."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४१ टिप्पण्या:
I have learned [through] experience that getting both sides isn't always what is fair, especially when one side has already made its views well known
Ignorance is Bliss?
Democracy Dies In Darkness?
650 students out of a total enrollment of 22000.
Our universities are the epicenter of the effort to suppress free speech in our country.
Oops- somebody read an old journalism textbook. Harvard is offended...
This leftie obsession with controlling narratives by stifling opposing viewpoints- first of all- scary! Especially coming from future power brokers...two, its not like we can't figure out when we're being fed propaganda...at least those of us not born yesterday...
The Left feels it necessary to censor speech and reporting of opposing views. Any liberal fair-minded person who stays silent about this is complicit.
We cannot just stand by and have two sides of any story, can we? Where are the One-Sided Story Activists? Oh...they're already present pretty much everywhere in media and academia.
I give Western Civ about 15 years. Maybe 20.
"...I have learned [through] experience that getting both sides isn't always what is fair...."
Seems they are taking their cues from the Democrat's impeachment on what is and isn't fair.
"I'll tell you what's fair and what's not!"
#tolerance #diversity
It’s not about what the people want.
It’s about what we people want.
And if you disagree, you’re anti-democracy.
David Hogg is a Harvard student.
Abolish Harvard. (disclosure: Boola Boola)
Even if you hear both sides of an issue, it will be framed wrong.
My daughter is applying to colleges right now. She has the grades, scores, and activities to put the Ivies in reach - but she is eschewing all of them. In her case, it's cost that matters (she's her father's daughter), but thank goodness. Whatever grounds she chooses to avoid wasting her college years in such places saves me from having to tell her, "Absolutely not - I will not have you destroy your critical thinking skills that way!"
One makes up a cool word like "academentia" and then one finds out that it's already in Wiktionary.
I am glad that you linked to this. It is par for the course. I know that because I read college newspapers on a regular basis. This is quite informative, as it provides a preview of where society as a whole will be in five years or so. It is also very depressing. As this article shows, today's undergraduates tend not to be big on liberal democratic values. That would be bad enough, but they also lack the ability to articulate compelling arguments for their points of view. Also, their writing skills are very poor. Many of the articles read as if they were written by high school sophomores. Using The word "only" grammatically seems to be especially challenging.
Someone missed the memo about narrative trumping fairness. That's dangerous, and they need to be shown, pour encourager les autres, just how risky such behavior can be.
I got my journalism training in high school, in a small junior college and on the job. I remember being taught the basics. Getting both sides IS a basic.
THEOLDMAN
Oh, also: "I've learned through experience that presenting both sides isn't always fair" can accurately be read as, "I have expressed my side of an argument in the past and it has failed to carry the day. Therefore someone had xer thumb on the scales -because self-evidently I would have won, otherwise."
I'm torn by this development. On one hand, this demand to suppress the press doing its job is clearly fascist. On the other hand, fascists who insist that they are powerless victims should be relatively easy to beat into submission.
I see the nations best and brightest (according to my moral and intellecual superiors) that lack the basic cognative ability to defend their intellectual position. They have no skill, ability, or education, to debate their beliefs on battle field of ideas.
Harvard, Harvard students have no tools to defend their beliefs... HARVARD STUDENTS
"They have no skill, ability, or education, to debate their beliefs on battle field of ideas."
They don't see why that should be necessary. In their world, it generally is not. In the larger world, they will work to make it unnecessary (or illegal).
At some point the pendulum is going to swing the other way and when it does these people unable to hear a differing opinion will have a very difficult time adjusting.
Years ago I quietly made it a policy not to hire Ivy League grads. Nothing I've read or heard about since then suggests that I was in any way wrong.
They have no skill, ability, or education, to debate their beliefs on battle field of ideas.
Which is why their only argument is "shut up you racist homophobe".
The whole artificially created controversy over Trump using the word "lynching" is a perfect example. No attempt to explain why it isn't a lynching, just manufactured outrage that Trump used the term, even though most Democrats used it when Clinton was impeached.
"...getting both sides isn't always what is fair, especially when one side has already made its views well known through the megaphones of government"
This is an iron rule: when you decide that it's necessary to rig the argument for some downtrodden group, people from Harvard will somehow manage to appropriate the status of the downtroddens.
Veritas -- was ist das?
The ChiComs have taken over Harvard and their ways are mandatory.
Temujin said...
We cannot just stand by and have two sides of any story, can we? Where are the One-Sided Story Activists? Oh...they're already present pretty much everywhere in media and academia.
I give Western Civ about 15 years. Maybe 20.
They now walk the hall of Congress. Soon enough, the White House.
I'm not talking propagandists. I'm talking true believers. Certain they are, that any information or discussion that runs counter to "the truth" is a danger to society.
So when do they dedicate the statue of Joesph Goebbels?
today's undergraduates tend not to be big on liberal democratic values. That would be bad enough, but they also lack the ability to articulate compelling arguments for their points of view.
There was a study a few years ago in which Harvard freshmen and seniors were tested on general information. The freshmen scored higher on information. Harvard reduces knowledge. They should just collect four years' tuition and grant a degree. Why waste four years? The kids are there for the degree.
College has not only become an expensive, worthless investment, it now produces negative returns for American Society. Nothing more than a dog and pony show. Raise costs, run these kids into massive debt, and completely pollute there ability to think rationally. Great output.
I wonder if there are any genuine Professors or Administrators, and other educators that look at all this and wonder, "Oh my God (wait...I don't believe in God) what the hell have we created in the last 30 years?"
I'm sure it's the discussion among faculty that dare not speak its name.
Before Jussie Smollett and Nick Sandmann, any wypipo accused of being racist were presumed guilty. Remember all the media interviews with the Double Tree security guard and manager who were fired for "racially profiling" a 34-year-old black man with a head full of gray hair? I don't. Remember all the interviews of every Becky accused of harassing black folks just fo' participatin' in they own lives? Those racists didn't deserve to defend themselves against a charge of racism!
There are some ideas so stupid it takes an Ivy League education to believe them.
“I know the Crimson acted on a desire for fairness, but I have learned [through] experience that getting both sides isn't always what is fair, especially when one side has already made its views well known through the megaphones of government,” Davis wrote....
What about the megaphones of the MSM through whom we have been blasted pro-illegal-immigration propaganda on a daily basis?
Advanced Study in Social Theory
4 units
Comprehensive analysis of the cultural risks in presenting both sides of an issue when there is clear evidence one side is evil and wrong.
You're simply asking for it to respond in a holistic way to the Abolish ICE Movement...
Granted that the Harvard organizations upset at Crimsonian journalistic practice are fools blinded by their ideological premises, what most irritated me was the "in a holistic way" in the real journalist's comment. The fact that I can (perhaps correctly) deduce from "in a holistic way" what she meant doesn't excuse the lack of clear English prose. Right thought, and then everything else is of minor importance, I guess.
"I have learned [through] experience that getting both sides isn't always what is fair, especially when one side has already made its views well known ..."
The unspoken part: And I should get to decide what is and is not fair. Because.
Yet the "logic" of those opposed to free speech always shipwrecks on the rocks of, "But then who would decide what may be said (and who may say it)?"
"Holistic" always means "justifying unfairness".
Holistic = Opacity and bullshit justifying unfairness
No problem, it's not as if those Harvard speech-Nazis will be in positions of power and influence in a few years.
I read about this yesterday. It is absolutely shameful that the school doesn't take these opportunities to teach the students about values ( remember the Winthrop House Master defenestration last spring). However it is characteristic of the current administration which is more concerned with various PC agenda than actually educating the kids about what matters.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा