[Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] Fwd: Zionist propaganda in the DI!

[Jim Buell]

To their credit, the Daily Illini website has posted a lengthy and 
thoughtful article quoting Al Kagan, Matt Reichl and Carl Estabrook among 
others, for tomorrow's edition.

>http://www.dailyillini.com/nov02/nov22/news/stories/news_story02.shtml

jb

>Campus responds to controversial ads
>
>   Joan Wagner
>   Supplements editor
>
>   The Daily Illini on Thursday ran the first of a series of controversial 
> ads that have raised free speech and hate
>   speech issues at the University and other colleges.
>
>   Thursday's advertisement depicted an athlete as an Israeli child's hero 
> and a suicide bomber as a Palestinian
>   child's hero. The One Truth Foundation sponsored the advertisements 
> listing its Web site, www.campustruth.org.
>
>   Some said the issue was hate speech, not free speech, and the DI should 
> not have accepted the paid
>   advertisement.
>
>   Foundation president Marcella Rosen said the Web site and the 
> organization are "one and the same" —
>   pro-Israeli — and represent people from different backgrounds and 
> religions.
>
>   An editorial run in Thursday's DI stated the advertisements "contain 
> inflammatory headlines, photos and statistics
>   that persuade the reader to believe Palestinian people support violence 
> and terror."
>
>   Rosen said the advertisements are meant to dispel untrue statements 
> about Israel's stance in the Middle East
>   conflict. Two other advertisements with different content also will 
> run. The three ads will run a total of 10 times.
>
>   The Daily Illini's Decision
>
>   Daily Illini Editor in Chief Angie Leventis called deciding whether to 
> run the ad a "painful process."
>
>   She received the ad Nov. 4. Leventis decided to run the ads after a 
> series of consultations with the editorial staff,
>   editorial board, advertising manager and communications professors.
>
>   She also received permission from news organizations the ad cited, 
> including the Associated Press to reprint the
>   ad's photos.
>
>   "I was afraid to smear a people, of hurting readers, of sending a 
> message the staff ultimately rejects, and inciting
>   violence," Leventis said. "I was worried it would make The Daily Illini 
> look as though we put money above the
>   well-being of our readers."
>
>   Leventis said a larger, underlying issue influenced her decision.
>
>   "In the end, I decided that it is a free speech issue even if it is 
> painful," Leventis said. "The One Truth Foundation
>   has a right to a voice, and I can't take that voice away just because I 
> think it's wrong."
>
>   The Daily Illini will give extra space to letters and forums the days 
> the ads run, and is soliciting pieces on the
>   Middle East conflict from professors and experts, she said. The paper 
> also will allot more news space to covering
>   the conflict's different aspects separate from the advertisements and 
> dedicate space for the opposing side, she
>   said.
>
>   "We believe more speech is better than less, and we're going to work to 
> deconstruct these ideas though our
>   coverage," Leventis said.
>
>   Whose speech?
>
>   The University community had mixed reactions to the advertisement.
>
>   Student Peace Action president Matt Reichel said his views did not 
> necessarily represent his group, but he
>   thought the ads should not run because they are racist. Not running the 
> ad could express freedom of speech, he
>   said. Money probably was a deciding factor in running the 
> advertisement, he added.
>
>   Professor Alfred Kagan, Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort member, said AWARE 
> members met at lunch to discuss
>   the ad.
>
>   He said the group couldn't decide whether the DI should have run the ad.
>
>   Kagan said groups that can afford to run ads like the One Truth silence 
> other groups and do not promote public
>   discourse. The issue could have been covered through letters to the 
> editor from One Truth or news stories written
>   about One Truth, he said.
>
>   A statement prepared by Chancellor Nancy Cantor stated the ad was 
> "deeply disturbing and offensive," but was
>   important for everyone to have their views heard. Once ideas are 
> shared, "they can be subject to rigorous
>   criticism to see if they have merit," she stated.
>
>   "While I am appalled at the hateful, polarizing views put forward in 
> the ad, I urge members of the University
>   community to respond as members of a University should: through 
> vigorous but civil debate," Cantor stated.
>
>   Visiting sociology professor Carl Estabrook said he wasn't pleased with 
> the idea of running paid ads expressing
>   "despicable speech."
>
>   But Estabrook said, "If you don't believe in free speech for speech 
> that you despise, then you don't believe in free
>   speech."
>
>   Journalism law professor Steve Helle said One Truth "can't compel a 
> newspaper or other mediums to carry their
>   speech."
>
>   "The newspaper has the right to decide what to carry," Helle said. "The 
> public has the right to view or not to view
>   the speech."
>
>   Leventis said the situation tested The Daily Illini's "commitment to 
> freedom of speech."
>
>   "Some people are hurt The Daily Illini even decided to publish it," 
> Leventis said. "Some people also believe it."
>
>   Rosen said she was surprised when some college papers chose not to run 
> the ads. The information, while an
>   opinion, can arm people to foster debates, she said.
>
>   Rosen noted when something is "well-documented, it can be heard." The 
> photographs and statistics used in the
>   ads come from reputable news sources, she said.
>
>   Though Rosen does not expect editorial board endorsements, she 
> emphasized the group's "right to be heard."
>
>   "There is always the right to run ads from the other side, and debate 
> is good," Rosen said. "You don't want to
>   stifle opinions."
>
>   Helle said there are different notions of what constitutes free speech 
> and hate speech.
>
>   "Everyone has a different notion of hate speech, and if all those 
> notions of hate speech were banned, we'd
>   basically be left with recipes to publish," Helle said.
>
>   Helle and journalism department head Ron Yates were among the 
> professors whose advice Leventis solicited
>   before running the ad.
>
>   Yates said the distinction between hate speech and free speech is 
> difficult because there is no "czar of speech"
>   to determine what is hateful. Much of the issue comes down to opinion, 
> he said.
>
>   Helle said no difference between hate speech and freedom of speech 
> exists, and what some might deem as
>   hate speech is protected.
>
>   "You don't need First Amendment protection for inoffensive speech," 
> Helle said. "The only time the First
>   Amendment comes into play is when you're dealing with speech someone 
> objects to."
>
>   The gray area of free speech complicates it, Yates said.
>
>   "Gray (area) confuses people because they can't decide where they 
> belong," he said.
>
>   The media is reflecting everybody's views, "as repugnant as they might 
> be," Yates said. "The messenger gets
>   blamed. If you kill the messenger, there's no place for your voice either."
>
>   Impact on other campuses
>
>   The ads have come under fire at other campuses.
>
>   Rosen said the advertisement is running in four campus newspapers and 
> has run at the University of Michigan.
>
>   "We think colleges are particularly important because students are our 
> future," Rosen said. "We think students
>   are smart enough to get the information and decide the issue for 
> themselves."
>
>   Yates said campuses are often approached with similar ads because they 
> can be places of heightened
>   sensitivity with academic attachments and student groups devoted to 
> certain issues.
>
>   Helle noted metropolitan newspapers are more concerned with revenue and 
> do not take as many "risks" as
>   college papers.
>
>   The University of Michigan's student newspaper ran the advertisement 10 
> times in October, said business
>   manager Jeff Valeck.
>
>   The Michigan Daily had previously run pro-Israeli advertisements, and 
> the advertisements didn't create
>   long-lasting problems for the paper, Valeck said. A pre-existing 
> boycott of the paper by campus groups that felt
>   the paper had institutional racism continued after the ads were run, he 
> said.
>
>   Michigan Daily Editor in Chief Jon Schwartz decided to run an editorial 
> to distance the staff from the decision.
>
>   The University of Maryland's independent paper made a similar decision.
>
>   Jay Parsons, editor in chief of The Diamondback, said a separate 
> business department made the decision and
>   most ads, as long as they are not pornographic or libelous, are considered.
>
>   Parsons said the paper has not run any editorials or articles on the ad 
> because it "just gives more attention to the
>   ad," though the paper has received many letters and phone calls.
>
>   "The reaction has been what you would expect from anything 
> controversial that would run in a newspaper,"
>   Parsons said. "If the advertisement had been for the other side, we 
> would have treated it the same way."
>
>   Student newspapers at Rutgers University and the University of Chicago 
> also ran the ad.
>
>   The business department of Rutgers' The Daily Targum, decided to run 
> the ads. Editor in Chief Jeffrey Uthaichai
>   said only one ran and caused such a stir that the paper decided to 
> suspend the ad temporarily.
>
>   A protest was planned against the paper, and he said when he went to 
> speak, only two people came.
>
>   The staff then decided not to print the ads including photos and only 
> print textual ads, but before the
>   advertisements ran, One Truth pulled all the ads, he said.
>
>   Rosen said she thought the paper "succumbed to persuasion" and One 
> Truth pulled the ad because "they offered
>   to run one out of three and one ad does not a campaign make."
>
>   But the University of Chicago's Chicago Maroon decided to pull the 
> advertisement themselves. Editor in Chief
>   Pete Beatty said he made a series of "cowboy decisions" — he first 
> decided not to run it because he felt it was
>   "awful" and "didn't promote any discourse."
>
>   Then he considered if he censored one ad, he'd need to censor others. 
> He said the paper had no procedure to
>   deal with the ad's controversy. He then decided to run it.
>
>   Responses trickled in slowly after the first run, but picked up after 
> the second one. Beatty then asked the editorial
>   board, which decided to pull the ad because they didn't "want to let 
> (One Truth) to use the Maroon as 11,000
>   copies for hate speech."
>
>   The Maroon wrote an editorial apologizing for the ads, and Beatty 
> emphasized "at no point did we cave into
>   pressure from anyone."
>
>   "I don't understand how anyone can defend this ad," he said. "To me, 
> it's clearly hate speech and a misuse of
>   facts. It's lying. I wish I had never gotten that ad in my inbox, and I 
> would not for a million dollars run it again."
>
>   Rosen called the situation "difficult" and was surprised at claims that 
> the ads were untrue.
>
>   "There's nothing untrue about it, and if they don't want to hear it, 
> that's another issue," Rosen said. "It's too bad for
>   us and too bad in general because it makes you wonder if other issues 
> are being muzzled."
>
>   Schwartz said he thought the reaction was "well-deserved."
>
>   "That ad, whether you agree or not, is going to provoke a passionate 
> response," he said.
>
>   —MaryAnne Pysson contributed to this report.