Jesse Baldwin-Philippi – Fordham Now https://now.fordham.edu The official news site for Fordham University. Thu, 02 May 2024 01:58:37 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://now.fordham.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/favicon.png Jesse Baldwin-Philippi – Fordham Now https://now.fordham.edu 32 32 232360065 Panel Breaks Down Consequences of ‘Cancel Culture’ as Part of Yearlong Series https://now.fordham.edu/politics-and-society/panel-breaks-down-consequences-of-cancel-culture-as-part-of-yearlong-series/ Sun, 14 Nov 2021 23:35:49 +0000 https://news.fordham.sitecare.pro/?p=154922 What does the term “cancel culture” really mean? What power does it have in our society? When is it accurately used and when it is overblown? These were just a few questions panelists attempted to answer at “Speech Impacts: ‘Cancel Culture’ and the Consequences of Our Words,” held on Nov. 4 as a part of a yearlong series on free speech and expression hosted by the Office of the Provost and Center on Religion and Culture.

The panel featured Meredith Clark, Ph.D., associate professor and founding director of the new Center for Communication, Media Innovation, and Social Change at Northeastern University; Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America; and Cornell Belcher, president of Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies and political contributor for MSNBC. Jessica Baldwin-Philippi, associate professor of communications and media studies at Fordham, served as moderator.

What is ‘Cancel Culture?’

After studying Black Twitter for some time, Clark noticed that over the past few years the community as a whole has started “using its collective power on the site” to demand accountability from people for racist or offensive behavior. She cited the example of media mogul Russell Simmons, who made an offensive video “spoof” of Harriet Tubman having sex with her slave holder.

“The resounding pressure was such that he issued an apology,” she said, adding that he removed the video from his collection. “He said that apologizing was something that he would never otherwise do, but the outcry had been so loud.”

Belcher said this type of calling someone out isn’t new.He referred to it as “checking” someone.

“What we call checking people—I think that’s as old and American as apple pie,” he said. “What I think is dramatically different is the vehicle that it has, and the power of that vehicle to mobilize and spread it and actually give it more power.”

Belcher gave the example of Amy Cooper, the white woman in Central Park who called police on Christian Cooper, a Black birdwatcher.

“Once upon a time when a woman said some crazy racist [stuff]to a Black guy watching birds in Central Park, he might check her and say something about it, but that would be the end of it,” he said. “Now when that crazy person said some racist [stuff]to the birdwatcher in the park—there’s now a

mob. So there’s more consequences … I think there’s a downside and an upside to that.”

With so many more people witnessing these events and cancelations, Nossel said, their impact can be multiplied in a way that worries her.
“My concern is about the way in which these particular cancellations can deepen divisions and polarization—a phenomenon I’ve witnessed of cascading cancellations where someone is called out, is out of bounds, and that even if you just defend them, you too can be sort of swept up in that,” she said.

On the flip side, the people doing the “calling out” can also be “shunned and stigmatized,” she said. “It can just escalate a battle instead of offering enlightened discourse.”

Separating Cancel Culture from Accountability

Both Clark and Nossel noted that there should be a difference between holding people accountable, such as the movement to hold R. Kelly accountable for his actions, and canceling someone for having an opinion you don’t agree with. But the two are often conflated, Clark said.

“The assumption that there’s a culture around it really does speak to some racialized origins— it throws back to the idea of the culture wars, that there are multiple groups in this country that are fighting to sort of set the ground rules of how we relate to one another and how discourse is supposed to flow,” she said.

Nossel said that it’s one thing when celebrities come under fire; they often have the resources to bounce back. But when a less famous person, like a journalist or professor, gets canceled, it can be hard for them to weather the storm.

“Individuals are within their rights to withhold their ticket-buying market power from a celebrity, or to tweet their outrage at something—that’s free speech,” she said. “But in our jet-fueled social media landscape … when you are under fire, it just feels thunderous and overwhelming. And what I have witnessed on multiple occasions is how institutional leaders, they just crack, they can’t take it.”

Possible Solutions and ‘Presumption of Innocence’

One possible way to address the under-fire feeling is to examine what the company is under fire about.

“I think one of the things that we need to look to institutions to do … is start thinking very seriously and very critically about how we’re going to address loud and outside demands for some sort of accountability, or how we’re going to address what is just noise,” Clark said.

Another possible solution raised by Belcher was “calling out cancel culture.” He cited the example of comedian Dave Chapelle, who made controversial comments related to the trans community in a comedy special. Right after he made it, he alluded to the fact that he’d probably get canceled.

“I’m not so sure Dave Chappelle hasn’t just killed cancel culture,” Belcher said. “He relished in it. And after the concert, he actually said, ‘Do you think they’ll cancel me?’ And he smiled, and dropped the mic. He’s calling out the canceled culture … that is probably the greatest sort of critique of canceled culture that I’ve ever seen.”

Still, Clark raised a few concerns about this method, particularly since a similar one had been employed by right wing speakers, such as Richard Spencer, who would work to get invited and then disinvited from a college—and use the outrage over that to fundraise or enhance their image.

Nossel said that we should try and move back to a place where there’s at least a “presumption of innocence” against those being called out and give them a chance to defend themselves.

“I think there’s something very fundamental to the fabric of our society that hinges on the idea that you’ll have an opportunity to defend yourself,” she said. “If you’re innocent, you’ll have a chance to prove that—you won’t receive a punishment based on a sort of speculation or innuendo, that there will actually be an inquiry.”

]]>
154922
Scholars Parse Seismic Shifts in American Political Life  https://now.fordham.edu/law/scholars-parse-seismic-shifts-in-american-political-life/ Thu, 06 Apr 2017 19:41:36 +0000 http://news.fordham.sitecare.pro/?p=66601 What does it mean to be a good American citizen in 2017? Do political campaigns need to recalibrate to compete effectively?

These were some of the questions addressed in a wide-ranging conversation held on April 5 at Fordham Law.

“Fake News & Twitter Wars: Media & Politics in the Trump Years” brought together Jessica Baldwin-Philippi, Ph.D., assistant professor of communication and media studies and author of Using Technology, Building Democracy: Digital Campaigning and the Construction of Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2015) and Zephyr Teachout, associate professor of law and author of Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United, (Harvard University Press, 2016).

When it comes to political campaigns, the speakers noted that some politicians run campaigns that decentralize tasks while others’ campaigns decentralize power. However, the traditional structure has changed very little, consisting of a finance director, a communications shop, and a political/field operations area. This arrangement caused endless conflict when the internet became a tool of campaigns, and hasn’t entirely abated.

“In 2008, ‘digital’ was under communications in almost every single campaign. In 2010, it was still under communications in almost every campaign. Even where they started to have their own fourth pillar, the [two]would fight constantly,” Baldwin-Philippi said. “And it continues. Most campaigns still have those three pillars.”

Baldwin-Philippi said that when she began researching her book in 2010, campaigns were painstakingly fact checking to prove their points. It was, she said, a short-lived phenomenon, however. Today, Americans need to become more adept at recognizing propaganda if they are to be a well-informed citizenry.

“Traditionally, we’ve measured being informed as knowing there are three branches of government, and knowing who the vice president is. I think we really need to move beyond these ways of measuring and pointing to good citizenship,” she said.

Teachout cautioned against the rise of media outlets that are ostensibly conservative but are “actually nihilistic.” There’s some merit to the saying that politics and the truth have never had a good relationship, she said—but at the same time politics cannot exist without a belief in the possibility of facts.

“Skepticism is one thing. But a radical cynicism actually makes conversation extremely difficult because then there is no final reference to which one can go to,” she said. “This kind of postmodern approach is incredibly dangerous for our discourse.”

Both speakers said that corruption was a central theme of the 2016 presidential election. Many voters chose Donald Trump because they felt the entire system was corrupt and wanted to throw it all out and start fresh.

Teachout noted that we can’t actually tell if another person is corrupt, or using public power for private, selfish ends, because we can’t look into another person’s heart. However, we can enforce laws that prohibit selfish behavior.

She criticized President Trump for refusing to separate himself from his businesses while in office, which she called a clear conflict of interest.

She also had harsh words for Hillary Clinton. When questions were raised about connections between The Clinton Foundation and her service as Secretary of State, Clinton simply said there was no “smoking gun” that proved obvious quid pro quo transactions.

“[The statement] suggests we should only be concerned about those circumstances, when we can see a smoking gun,” she said. “It actually pushes on a heavy legalism, which our current president has adopted and exaggerated.”

“It’s important that we respect conflict-of-interest norms,” she said.

The event, which was moderated by Eric Sundrup, S.J. associate editor of America magazine, was the second in the Maloney Law Library’s Behind the Book series, which brings together scholars to discuss their research on contemporary issues and the publishing experience.

.

]]>
66601
Digital Debates on the Campaign Trail https://now.fordham.edu/inside-fordham/digital-debates-on-the-campaign-trail/ Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:20:00 +0000 http://news.fordham.sitecare.pro/?p=25765 In the 2008 election the Obama campaign was widely credited for gaining an edge by understanding and using the power of social media to its advantage. A mere two years later, the Republicans got the memo and used new media to their advantage, taking control of the House and narrowing the gap in the Senate.

In her new book, Using Technology, Building Democracy: Digital Campaigning and the Construction of Citizenship (Oxford University Press, 2015) , Jessica Baldwin-Philippi, PhD, uses qualitative research to examine the digital strategies employed by both parties during the 2010 midterm elections. She also delves into how federal races now navigate “the post-Obama landscape.”

She said the Obama campaign’s digital strategy was not just about donations, web traffic, and “likes” that won the election; rather the campaign used the digital realm to engage the public in old-school retail campaigning.

“They sought to get citizens to engage more deeply, not just to give money,” said Baldwin-Philippi, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication and Media Studies. “They used the technology to get people onto the streets, to become precinct captains, and to go knock on doors. That’s why they won.”

Baldwin-Philippi historically contextualized the current use of big data analytics to the 1996 Clinton campaign’s use of “lifestyle targeting.” The Clinton campaign polled people and purchased data that included voters’ magazine subscriptions. But nowadays lifestyle targeting is far more specific. Campaign ads appearing on a husband’s Facebook or Youtube page could look quite different from his wife’s page, even though they may agree politically and share a demographic.

The book not only documents how campaigns uses of data are new, but how the messages they produce are changing too. Baldwin-Philippi delves into how the rise in fact checking has led to a healthy skepticism on the part of the public.

“Voters are nuancing the information that they are given now,” she said. “It’s much different than a 30-second TV spot. By default, on the web you’re able to put up reams of information about a candidate.”

Some of that information may be false and/or “in the service of negativity,” she said. But the atmospheric change has caused citizens to become more cautious with the information they consume.

And the public is also more in charge of how interactive it wants to be, she said. During the 2010 campaign, candidates’ staff, press people, and politicos engaged in a lively debate over how to deal with techno types with a utopian penchant for the free flow of information.

“There was this dual tension between asking citizens to engage, debate, and discuss on social media, and this huge fear of losing control,” said Baldwin-Philippi. “The press secretary types weren’t going to just let anyone post comments to the Facebook wall.”

She said that while campaigns still control the backend of their Facebook pages, as time has progressed they’ve loosened the reigns and permitted debate.

The end result has been mostly positive, with campaigns mining social media for “opinion leaders” that will repost as well as put in some real time at headquarters.

Baldwin-Philippi includes some quantitative analysis of campaign material content, but her focus is on qualitative study.

“I think that as we grapple with these new questions of what is happening and, more importantly, why it is happening, we need to provide qualitative data.”

]]>
25765