​Equal concern for reporters and safe spaces

Tensions flared on Tuesday between student activists and the media on the University of Missouri’s campus. A widespread video shows a crowd of activists physically blocking a student journalist, Tim Tai, from ESPN from taking pictures of their tent encampment. The angry crowd insisted on their right to be left alone by the media. Tai stated his First Amendment right to document the event. The clash is a flashpoint of the larger debate on the borders between safe spaces and free speech.

Legally, Tai had an indisputable first amendment right to photograph an event occurring outdoors on public property. Yet in the video, an Assistant Professor of Communications at Missouri is shown confronting Tai and telling him to “get out.” This failure to be a well-informed role model is disappointing. While students protesting should on the one hand have informed themselves of their rights and the rights of the media, the expectation on faculty members is obviously higher. Since, the student demonstrators, called Concerned Student 1950 after the year Missouri first admitted black students, has posted signs addressing freedom of speech and welcoming media, calling the confrontation a “teachable moment.”

But the debate over media bias and historical misrepresentations of black experiences has more to offer. Despite standards of journalistic ethics, major outlets from MSNBC to Fox News have been repeatedly cited for titling and framing stories along ideological lines. In the past decade or so, smartphone cameras and social media have placed storytelling in the hands of individuals, granting activist movements greater control over their own messages. One rationale, tweeted by an activist at Missouri, for turning on Tai was to protect their community from the media’s “twisted insincere narratives.” Whether out of desire to retain agency over their message or fear of media misappropriation, the activists’ desire for a safe space was well-intentioned even as their actions were indefensible.

Obviously this is not to say the mainstream media has no role. In this case, the photojournalist later communicated in an interview that he had wanted to document the “historic” event of the activists’ victory as “a personal issue that people all over the country can connect with.” The same professor who confronted Tai actually called in previous days for greater media coverage. Activists may find that their goals and the goals of well-intentioned journalists align. The issue of safe spaces, then, becomes a question of communication and a balancing act between telling one’s own stories and allowing the regular channels to use their network power.

How, then, should media and activists navigate the boundaries of safe spaces, in light of their own goals and the rights of others? First, activists must have a clear grasp of the legitimate and illegitimate ways of asserting their rights to a safe space. Here, the cordoning off of public spaces to media was obviously wrong. But activists also have a valid claim against media attempts, intentional or not, to twist and misrepresent their stories. In any case, activists and well-intentioned journalists certainly share the goal of not detracting from the movements and stories themselves by getting bogged down in conflicts like these.

The treatment of Tai was deeply disappointing to the Board, and though we are glad the activists have spun away from their actions, the fact that it is so easy for desires for safe spaces to overpower free speech through a mob is concerning even as the media is reminded of where these groups are coming from in criticizing coverage. Tuesday’s incident and activists’ subsequent revision of their stance towards media represents a moment of growth and learning for both sides.