A communications professor not too keen on free speech
Steve Safran September 3rd, 2006
Tell me I didn’t just read a professor of communications write this: “Professional associations representing the media should stop wasting time asserting access “rights” that don’t exist.” That’s Prof. Jeffrey McCall’s position. He’s a professor of communication at DePauw University, and he has no problem with the NFL ban of news cameras from sidelines. Prof. McCall writes in the Indianapolis Star: “…nobody will miss a few minutes of low-angle video from any particular local station.” In 2004, Prof. McCall wrote of his support of the FCC crackdowns: “First Amendment framers would cringe to think their precious free speech principle, designed to fuel the conversation of democracy, would be used to defend the ‘rights’ of smut broadcasters to shock the public with messages that have no political or social value.” (Apparently DePauw professors now get to decide which speech is shocking and has no political or social value, and won’t protect it by the First Amendment.) McCall opposes local stations using VNRs, but has no problem with them trying to report sports news with other people’s video. (Last day for students to drop classes at DePauw is Oct. 13. I’m just saying.)
24 Comments Add your own
1. Dave | September 3rd, 2006 at 9:56 pm
I think the “framers” would be more concerned today about the size of the federal government, the federal fiscal policy, and federal foreign policy by so called “conservatives” but that’s just me.
I swear, college professors are just plain nuts. They’re always crazy liberal, conservative, anarchist, or socialist. I’ve never met a centrist professor.
2. B. Weaver | September 4th, 2006 at 4:17 am
Hey, we’re not all nuts. But there’s a difference between those who study communications from afar spending their adult lives situated in the academic bubble versus those who worked the sidelines as reporters and photographers.
Meanwhile, the NFL policy is just another way to squeeze out the little guy from the little station or small, independent publication that’s not yet part of some bigger company promoting lameness and sameness.
I think Jefferson and the gang would be more concerned about how the First Amendment has been hijacked by corporate America (the NFL or big media…) and how these new monarchs have managed to take over the democracy by capturing and running the regulatory agencies that are suppose to be the advocates for the people. Isn’t the FCC charged with regulating the “public airwaves?” Most of the time it’s a matter of managing the corporate bureaucracy and from time to time the red herring of “obscenity” creeps into the discussion distracting attention from what really matters such as ownership limits, access, public trust…
Painting people as liberal or conservation is part of the rhetoric to shutdown any discussion so you don’t have to look at things critically from another point of view. I may disagree with this professor’s position, but I think it goes deeper to the issue that big media is in more control than big government, thus the everyday person has no control. The marketing of violence and sex in media gets a slap on the wrist a few times and everyone freaks. CBS/Viacom makes more money on a 30 spot than any FCC fine for some infraction of taste. It’s all smoke and mirrors compared to the real FA tragedies going on today.
3. thewashingtonchannel | September 4th, 2006 at 6:27 am
yeah, what he said.
(and so eloquently too)
4. Adam | September 4th, 2006 at 8:45 am
I’ve got to say that I think the NFL has every right to decide which media outlets get to shoot their games. At the end of the day it’s a company that makes it’s profit largely on television broadcast rights. I don’t see it as much different from concert promoters only allowing stations to use 2 minutes of a close circuit feed from a show. With that said, I think it’s dumb to limit your exposure. The professor has one decent point; why spend this amount of time and political capital on the NFL when we’re confronted with more serious transgressions against free speech and media such as those in NYC after 9/11? I literally shot a PETA protest from a 10×10 cage for cameramen, in the interest of “security”. The protesters were in another cage a few feet away. One can imagine what would happen if the media were there protesters.
5. flotsam | September 4th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Standing by to be attacked, Adam above is on the mark.
What all the media screamers forget is that the NFL and the teams OWN these games; OWN the stadiums; and own the sidelines and therefore (should) have the right to control media coverage as they see fit.
The RNC and the DNC do it at Conventions and have historically in loose but testy cooperation with the media and bottom line, they tell us where we can be. Period.
As with the NFL it is their event and they do as they see fit whether we whine or not.
6. Safran | September 4th, 2006 at 9:14 am
No attack here. I see and respect the counter-argument. I’m not going to be defensive on my position. I know you guys understand it.
What I’m disturbed by is a communications professor who wouldn’t encourage the media to stand up for itself. A communications professor who doesn’t think the FCC is doing enough to enforce prudity. A communications professor who thinks the 1st Am shouldn’t apply to speech he considers “shocking.”
Put aside the football argument for a moment - Flotsam and Adam. Would you be cool with this guy teaching your kids?
7. invitedmedia | September 4th, 2006 at 11:19 am
if that’s your criteria, safran, there’s always home schooling.
8. flotsam | September 4th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
There is this about “communications professors” which is true in the main: those who can’t do…wind up teaching others how not to do.
9. steve | September 4th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
If the NFL wants to limit the sidelines then that’s they’re right after the reimburse the public and the municipalitioes for the billions they have been given or loaned for the current stadiums.
Plus, it’s interesting that newspapers have no restrictions but those shooting video are banished.
10. Larry Crittenden | September 4th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Two Points:
- In many NFL cities the stadium was financed, to some degree, with public money. Even if complicated contracts provide exclusive control to NFL franchises, a sense of logic and fairness tells us that the public should retain some right to objective media coverage.
- With this new policy, the NFL is pushing away local broadcasters who have been helping the league build fan support for decades. Plus, the NFL and network video archives are full of the “local” footage that stations have been happy to provide, often without any compensation.
Still photographers will likely be next. Can the local scribes be far behind?
11. thedetroitchannel | September 5th, 2006 at 5:30 am
i have to take issue with those who say the stadiums are financed with public money so the public has a right to see the nfl.
that’s a huge stretch.
if you want to go take pictures of the STADIUM, go ahead.
don’t you think you could make a whole lot more people watch your newscast by putting on one of the vibrating football boards and simply ad libbing the details? rock’em sock’em robots when a fight breaks out?
sports is such a time sensitive thing. once the score is in the highlight’s value is diminished anyhow.
of course there is always that shot of elway L-E-A-P-I-N-G into the end zone enroute to beating the packers…
nevermind.
12. Allen | September 5th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Nevermind exactly. You just don’t get it.
13. theminneapolischannel | September 5th, 2006 at 7:39 am
as “B. Weaver” so eloquently reminds us above: “painting people as LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE is part of the rhetoric to shutdown any discussion so you don’t have to look at things critically from another point of view”.
can we add: JUST DON’T GET IT to that list?
14. Lex | September 5th, 2006 at 8:41 am
If I ran a network affiliate in an NFL market, I might well decide that if they weren’t going to let my shooters shoot the game, I wasn’t going to CARRY the game. Sure, anything else I could run would draw fewer viewers, but 100% of the ad revenue would be mine.
Or is that totally unrealistic from a financial or legal standpoint (the print guy asks)?
15. Jason | September 5th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Back to Safran’s point: why is this guy teaching communications? How can you be against VNRs yet in favor of running VNRs from the football league? I assume he encourages the airing of opposing views in his classroom.
16. KC | September 5th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Steve:
This comm professor shows in a few lines how much he actually understands what free speech is and entails…something you obviously don’t understand.
17. Safran | September 5th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Not agreeing with a point of view is considerably different than not understanding it.
But you’re right, we need professors to help us understand the complex wording of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment. Stop me when this gets too legalese:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
I was only a poli sci major, but I’m reasonably sure I can follow that one.
Now that 3rd Amendment - the business about quartering soldiers in my home? NOBODY better abridge that one.
18. thestlouischannel | September 5th, 2006 at 10:44 am
you know, mentioning this subject or rocketboom brings out the best this blog has to offer!
19. unclebob | February 24th, 2007 at 1:54 am
Our gov. is corrupt and sold out our country for the few. Shipped our jobs out of the U.S. Plundering the resourses around the world.Corporations have no concern for the land they destroy or the people they kill. Truth and integrity is not in there vocabulary .Its time to remove most of our poiticans out of office. lol…If they go back to the paper ballot.
20. buy online sex toys montr&hellip | February 24th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
fine asian pussy…
fucking a vacume…
21. nude sex yaoi&hellip | February 25th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
tiny teen gallery tiny teen…
onekit internet privat webcam g…
22. baby cardinals pictures&hellip | April 7th, 2007 at 4:26 am
black pornstar gallarys…
free cam chat for teens…
23. can depakote cause acne?&hellip | April 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
homemade acne remedies…
advanced acne treatment…
24. D. Derrick | March 21st, 2008 at 9:49 am
Read Chapter 2 of McCall’s book Viewer Discretion Advised if you want to see how he views Free Speech. He thinks Free Speech should be controlled by the FCC on all media channels, broadcast, cable and satellite. I live close enough to take a class from him. Nah, I already know what he’ll be teaching. - dan
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed