Student press advocates say such apparent retaliation for hard-hitting news coverage is common on college campuses. While courts generally acknowledge greater free press privileges among college journalists than their younger peers, that freedom is far from absolute, said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center in northern Virginia.
Advisers, not students, often bear the brunt of administrative anger, he said — especially, if like Hanrahan, they are at-will employees who lack tenure.
"There are two occupations in America that are more dangerous the better you are at them," said LoMonte. "Journalism adviser and suicide bomber."
Saturday, May 07, 2011
AP picks up Hanrahan story
Associated Press has picked up the story on the firing of Missouri Southern State University newspaper adviser/journalism teacher T. R. Hanrahan, including it as part of a larger piece on retaliations against newspaper advisers whose reporters cover news that administrators would prefer to keep hidden:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Mr. LoMonte of the "Student Press Law Center" insults every man and woman in uniform...police, fire, military... by claiming a teacher is in more danger than they. Even farmers and miners face greater danger. My goodness...he doesn't help his cause. Wake up man....this is America where you can make your own bed and therefore suffer the consequences...good or bad.
I just read the A.P. story. It seems that Randy left out the most important part; "Hanrahan said there's "no evidence (his removal) was in response to that reporting." Obviously this was omitted from Randy's comment because it runs counter to the story line he wants. Randy's problem is and always has been that he is dishonest. To mention this A.P. story and leave out this quote is an indication of a complete lack of journalistic ethics on the part of Randy Turner. He will try to excuse this lapse by saying that that is not the point he is trying to make. My point is that Randy is always trying to make his own point rather than be honest and truthful.
How can one admonish what he calls a complete lack of journalistic ethics, and at the same time support Southern's firing of T.R. Hanrahan?
Is there a guy on staff somewhere that writes this silly stuff in support of Speck and Douglas and their lapdogs on the Board?
What nonsense these people spew out. You can't defend anything about Speck any more than you could about Mussolini, or Gaddafi, or Caligula: he rules unilaterally, selfishly, short-sightedly, and brainlessly; and his history, when it is written, will be a sad lesson.
Let us hope that is soon.
5:11
Whether TR believes it was a part or not, can you give me a reason an award winning professor who is liked by years of students and by all accounts a good teacher let go? In what world does that make sense? A change of direction from positive results? That makes sense?
These last two comments twist logic. Randy Turner pointed to an A.P. story, the story speaks for itself, Hanrahan says there is no evidence that reporting by the Chart led to his contract not being renewed. Randy's failure to include that most important quote and to cast the A.P story as if it leads to the opposite conclusion is an ethical lapse and a journalistic failure. Mussolini, or Gaddafi, or Caligula were all mass murderers who committed crimes against humanity. To say that Dr. Speck is the same as a mass murderer guilty of war crimes puts that commentator in the class of “insane”. I said nothing about Dr. Speck at all to defend or defame him. I just quoted Hanrahan. Your conclusion that Hanrahan’s own words defend Dr. Speck is of course your own conclusion. As to giving you a reason for the non-renewal of the contract, I don’t know the reason. I do know that personnel matters are not public but private and privileged. For that reason neither you nor I can or should know the reason. All we do know is that Hanrahan says it has nothing to do with reporting from the Chart. You can speculate, imagine, spread rumors, even lie or as the previous person did in calling Dr. Speck a mass murderer. I find it very telling that Randy Turner chose to let that language stay up on his blog. He has said that he monitors these comments and takes down inappropriate ones, so tell us Randy do you really believe that Dr. Bruce Speck is the same as “Mussolini, or Gaddafi, or Caligula”?
By the way, I neither supported nor opposed the non renewal of the contract. I don't have an opinion about that.
Anonymous 5:11, TR is too classy a guy (and professional) to try to damage his alma mater. TR is a humble guy who deflects any accolades the way of his staff. The guy loves MSSU.
As far as saying there was "no evidence," his comments would not be journalism, they would be opinion and would be perceived (or at least characterized by some) as sour grapes, so there is no point in him trying to tear down an institution that he holds so dear. The stories that were printed that made MSSU look bad were truth. Truth uncovered in the face of attempts to hide the truth. The truth is that there are some people actually making MSSU look bad. TR's journalism students were simply shedding the bright hot spotlight of high-integrity journalism on those who wish to destroy MSSU.
Anonymous 3:02 you said: "All we do know is that Hanrahan says it has nothing to do with reporting from the Chart."
TR said nothing of the sort. He said that there is "no evidence," which is analogous to a "not guilty" verdict. It says nothing about innocence on the part of the accused, just that there is insufficient evidence to acquit. Innocence is presumed going in to a case, it is not found at the conclusion of a trial. After all, OJ was found "not guilty" and we know what the court of public opinion concluded, and, in the end, that's probably all that really matters.
Correction: Insufficient evidence to convict (not acquit).
No, not "Insufficient evidence to convict". "Hanrahan said there's no evidence"(his removal) was in response to that reporting." That is right Hanrahan said "no evidence".
"No evidence" means no basis for an accusation.
Post a Comment