A Speaker, a University and a Press Outlet

The School of Media and Journalism at UNC-Chapel Hill recently announced that Tucker Carlson of Fox News will be a guest speaker in April. As one could imagine given Carlson’s strong conservative views and methods of portraying those views, there has been controversy surrounding this decision. Alumni have been tweeting and yes, The Daily Tar Heel has been writing.

I would like to start out with a disclaimer: I do NOT love Tucker Carlson. I RARELY ever agree with him and do feel he has a strong flair for entertainment. When listening to him, I often find myself frustrated or vehemently disagreeing with him so my goal here is not to write a praise piece for Carlson…

Many have been quick to compare Carlson to personalities such as the wild conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and I personally don’t feel thats a fair or well thought out comparison. Carlson has worked at CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Arguably some of the most powerful news outlets in the United States. Before that, Carlson worked the Policy Review, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the Weekly Standard and Reader’s Digest. He has contributed to numerous other publications such as the New York Times. He currently is the host of Tucker Carlson Tonight that has an average of over 2,900,000 viewers (source). He founded his own publication, The Daily Caller. While many would fairly consider him more an entertainer nowadays, one can’t argue that he is inexperienced and has spent no time as a journalist. Alex Jones on the other hand, got his big break from public-access TV and his experience is not comparable to Carlson’s and therefore understandably doesn’t have as much to stand on (source).

As the MJ-professor, John Robinson shared, Twitter outrage following the announcement was quick to come. One tweet said if he was a student he would demand a refund! Another argued that Carlson speaking would devalue student’s degrees…

I will not be demanding a refund and I certainly do not feel my degree is devalued by choice to host Carlson. I actually feel the opposite. I believe that having the opportunity to listen to an experienced public figure that holds views very different from my own, is a unique and necessary one. It is an experience that ADDS to my degree as it provides an opportunity for me to appreciate the need to hear other’s opinions. Part of what tends to bother me about President Trump is that I feel he has no respect for any view that is contrary to his. Anytime someone disagrees with him, he shouts fake news. Therefore, if that is something I dislike, I can’t then go and do the same. Carlson can make my blood boil but that doesn’t mean I want to ignorantly walk through life pretending he doesn’t exist or that his opinions aren’t out there and IF I walked away from the journalism school doing so, then I may argue that my degree has been devalued.

Yes, he may now fall more into the entertainment category rather than the journalism one, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t learn something valuable from him. Professor Robinson writes: “And that’s why his visit and speech are valuable. UNC-Chapel Hill is an educational institution. Students are there to learn. Among other things, the journalism school teaches critical thinking and skepticism…Carlson’s visit provides the perfect opportunity to teach students about the principles of journalism, about truth-telling, fact-checking and bias. About journalistic independence and speaking truth to power…Journalists are inquisitive people. Part of the job is to critically explore ideas — both those they agree with and those they oppose…Despite what Fox News commentators would like you to believe, students in the Journalism School aren’t snowflakes. They can handle ideas across the spectrum, and they need to know how to question them all.” If you’re not convinced by Robinson’s words, please visit his sources: The American Press Institute AND The Columbia Journalism Review. I think Robinson sums up my argument pretty well that my degree will NOT be devalued. I am also not worried about conflict or protests considering I have mentioned Carlson’s speech to classmates and more often than not have been answered by, “Who is that?”

Clearly, I have thought a lot about the choice to have Carlson speak. Therefore, I was extremely frustrated when the DTH published an article that I personally feel may have lacked the same in depth-thought and research: “Tucker Carlson’s Notoriety does not Equate to Equality.” I will illustrate this frustration with excerpts from the piece.

1. “The IOP, however, bears no responsibility to train journalists. Even if it did, hosting two figures from opposite ends of the political spectrum is far more conducive to learning than inviting a slew of conservatives commentators for years in a row.” I am assuming the writer is referring to the UNC Institute of Politics even though that is not entirely clear and while I have not attended an event put on by the IOP, I have attended one of the lectures in question: Britt Hume's. He spoke my sophomore year about the rise in popularity of, now president, Donald Trump and how/why he could win the election. I learned more relevant information from Hume’s lecture than I have learned from half of my classes at UNC. I don’t mean that as a criticism to UNC, rather as a point that even though Hume is a Fox commentator who again I often wouldn’t agree with, I was still able to learn AND I was able to learn and gain insight that would become extremely valuable to me when Trump actually did win the presidency. If you didn’t listen to Hume’s lecture, think “Hillbilly Elegy” type content. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to hear Chris Wallace speak last year but I know that many students appreciated the opportunity. That being said, I am sure some didn’t, but I wouldn’t argue that the conservative speakers have not been conducive to learning.

It is also important to note here that Carlson’s speech will be followed by a panel moderated by Dr. Daniel Kreiss. Carlson will be joined by students that I know for a fact hold different opinions than his and will not be afraid to voice them. I am lucky enough to know two of the panelists personally through academic work at the MJ-School and have the utmost faith in them to speak honestly and thoughtfully. Therefore, that will provide an opportunity to listen to different opinions similar to what the IOP does in many of their events.

2. “It is also clear that in recent years, the MJ-school has veered off the tracks of ideological diversity…” While I see the point that the speakers in the past few years have not been ideologically diverse, I could make an argument that these choices actually do encourage idealogical diversity. It is no secret that we attend a liberal institution and I am perfectly okay with that. Therefore, it is also no secret that many professors, especially in the MJ-school, are also liberal, which again I have absolutely no problem with - especially as I have been taught by professors such as Dr. Daniel Kreiss and Ferrel Guillory that make a point to keep their personal beliefs (as much as possible) outside of the classroom. Still though, there are other teachers that don’t do that and I have heard many students with conservative views claim that they would never write a paper portraying those views for fear of getting a bad grade. Either way, we attend a liberal university where there isn’t as much idealogical diversity especially opinions held by teachers and students alike. A student could arguably get through the MJ-School without hearing many conservative viewpoints while definitely hearing many liberal ones. Therefore, the choice of conservative speakers actually could encourage and increase ideological diversity.

3. “The MJ-school states that the series enhances its Roy H. Park Fellowship Program but it is difficult to see how listening to a partisan hack who abandoned journalistic standards years ago would do so.” Here, I will refer you back to Professor Robinson’s article and my earlier points.

4. “Hopefully, the curriculum has been redesigned since Park’s son graduated long ago, because if the causes he funds with his father’s money are any indication, he’s certainly interested in the downfall of the modern press.” This point in the article was when I found myself most disappointed and angry because I actually do know the Park family and I am confident in the fact they are NOT interested in the downfall of the modern press. While I have not met the original founder of the Park Foundation, I have met his great granddaughter and I will briefly refer to her as an indication of the Park family's character and ideals, rather than a unexplained list of causes they gave money to. She is a fellow MJ-school student who has journalistic aspirations of her own. I have been lucky enough to work closely with her in a study on women in political tech positions, led by Dr. Kreiss, and she always respectfully and openly listened to my opinions that are often different than her own. Honestly, she and I are what many would refer to as an extremely successful bipartisan relationship, in a time where this RARELY occurs. I’m proud to know her and her family and have been better and more well rounded for it. I don’t feel that the assumption above is an accurate or fair one. Just because someone chooses to donate to causes I disagree with, doesn’t mean his or her sole intent is in the downfall of the modern press. While the DTH had no formal or strict obligation to ask her or her family for a comment, it would’ve been a fair thing to do, especially when she is such a fixture at the MJ-School. Surely, if the DTH didn't feel it necessary to reach out to the Parks, I at least would imagine they would feel it right to reach out to the MJ-school and Dean King for comment but alas they did not do that either. Talk about journalistic integrity!

I don’t mean to slam the DTH; I mean to express my desires that the DTH tell the whole story. I understand that this choice to have Carlson speak is a controversial one. I just feel that the article only portrayed one point of view and a biased one at that. If we are going to be quick to judge Carlson’s lack of journalistic ethics, we have to make sure we are doing just the opposite. Fighting fire with fire doesn’t equate to progress.

I think that UNC-CH has an opportunity to be a beacon of journalistic equality and free speech. The MJ-school can show that we are indeed not snowflakes and that we can handle diversity of opinions; that we pride ourselves in respecting the first amendment and the right of others to express their own beliefs. As I said earlier, I don’t foresee Carlson inviting massive and unsafe student protests considering that most of the people I’ve asked about their opinion don’t even know who Carlson is. So therefore, it would seem that the only reason the MJ-School would ask Carlson to not speak, is because they don’t like what he has to say and I don’t think that would teach any of us a valuable lesson. Notoriety may not be synonymous to quality but I also know that ignorance is not synonymous to a well rounded journalist.

In short, I would like to say that I am NOT embarrassed and I am most definitely NOT ashamed. As Robinson writes, "Tucker Carlson will Speak at UNC-Chapel Hill, and Everything will be Alright."

Sources:

https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/tucker-carlson-turns-40-moves-to-fox-news/

https://www.facebook.com/pg/TuckerCarlsonTonight/about/?ref=page_internal

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/fox-news-is-basic-cables-most-watched-network-for-the-17th-straight-month/350264

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Carlson

http://dailycaller.com

http://www.businessinsider.com/alex-jones-bio-conspiracy-trump-megyn-kelly-2017-6

https://www.unciop.org

https://twitter.com/brithume?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

http://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/eight_simple_rules_for_doing_a.php?link