ShareThis Page

Social media & campus speakers

| Saturday, March 25, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
Tribune-Review contributing writer Andrew Conte.
Tribune-Review contributing writer Andrew Conte.

We never will know what Wendy Bell might have said.

The former WTAE-TV anchor decided recently not to speak at Point Park University's Center for Media Innovation because of online protests. She would have talked about her new project, Positively Wendy Bell , but also would have inevitably faced questions about the Facebook post that led the station to fire her last year.

A group of Facebook users raised objections to the event: Some people see Bell's original post as racially insensitive or ignorant; others feel it was appropriate. Embroiled in a lawsuit with the station, Bell said her lawyers discouraged her from speaking .

A larger trend has started on college campuses with protesters seeking to prevent others from speaking.

The University of California at Berkeley canceled a January appearance by conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos when protesters rioted outside the venue where he was to speak. The school's chancellor defended his right to speak , even as he encouraged people to voice their concerns, citing the “need to make a spirited defense of the principle of tolerance, even when it means we tolerate that which may appear to us as intolerant.”

Earlier this month, students at Vermont's Middlebury College shouted down Charles Murray , co-author of the 1994 book “The Bell Curve” that linked poverty with race and intelligence. Similar questions came up at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism recently when Breitbart economics editor John Carney was invited to speak on a panel with journalists from The New York Times, The Guardian, CNN and The New Yorker.

“Giving Carney a chance to air grievances may have led to uncomfortable moments ... but he also drove conversation,” Columbia Journalism Review reported .

When Bell declined to appear, we invited several media experts to talk about social media's power. The words we write, on Facebook and Twitter especially, tend to stick around, particularly in the age of President Trump tweeting personal thoughts and administration strategies.

We also invited Samey Jay, a Point Park senior and communications coordinator at Pittsburgh United , a coalition of community, labor, faith and environmental groups. Jay opposed Bell's appearance but was thoughtful about it, when others were offensive and even vulgar. Jay voiced concern, in particular, that student voices were not being heard.

Using social media to communicate and organize in new ways can lead to mob rule with dissenting voices drowning out meaningful discussion. But social media also can create forums for better conversation, when we choose to use them that way.

“Engaging in dialogue, sharing information, and especially sharing experiences and stories, is fundamental to altering the public conscience,” Jay wrote on Facebook before her appearance. “By using social media in these ways we can reach new audiences, connect people previously disconnected from one another, and effectively organize together.”

Jay's important and thoughtful perspective provided poignant proof of why we need spaces for meaningful discussion, even when it's hard.

Andrew Conte is the director of the Center for Media Innovation at Point Park University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.