Truth With A Capital “T”
- Raini Singleton
- Sep 6, 2019
- 5 min read
In a small closet-sized space within the Journalism building, Jonathan Peters sat poised in his leather-reclining chair as he ferociously yet thoughtfully typed away on his computer.
CNN had reached out to Professor Peters specifically, inquiring for his input following the revocation of a press pass from chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. The incident, which occurred on Nov. 7, raised major concerns that the action against Acosta was a direct violation of the First Amendment, especially since President Trump seemed biased in his motives given his history of harsh critique against the aforementioned cable news channel.
The events concerning Acosta are just one of the many examples of issues encompassing the current state of the media, with phrases such as media bias, distrust and “fake news” becoming part of the normal, everyday vocabulary.
“The press at large is facing unprecedented anti-press rhetorical attacks from the highest levels of American government,” Peters would later say. “There is a proper role for tough, accurate press criticism, where journalists don’t live up to the industry’s ethics or their own standards. They have to be called out and criticized for doing it. But that is a very different thing from trying to deinstitutionalize and delegitimize the press.”
Professor Peters’ extensive knowledge of First Amendment law and the legalities within journalism has accumulated over an impressive history of educational and experiential background. When Professor Peters isn’t in the classroom teaching to undergraduate and graduate students, he is a practicing First Amendment lawyer for the Student Press Law Center and the ACLU. Furthermore, he is an active journalist and commentator on First Amendment issues. His input has been utilized for numerous outlets such as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, NPR, the Associated Press, and others.
Such mastery of the field has made Peters an idolized and respected source, and through his research pertaining to new media and how it reshapes news distribution, expresses his concern about the current state of journalism and the public’s perception on it.
Joseph Watson is the Carolyn Caudell Tieger Professor of Public Affairs Communications (PAC) at Grady College. In his position, he oversees the program, while also instructing both introductory and upper-level courses within PAC. As one of Peters’ colleagues, he has had the opportunity to witness his potential directly.
“Dr. Peters has established himself as both an expert in the area of media treatment and also a defender of the First Amendment protections for the press,” Watson said. “I believe Dr. Peters rises above the current milieu by grounding his perspectives firmly in fact, data and established law. Too often opinions fly without any substantive support or context. That is never the case with Dr. Peters.”
Incidents such as the one experienced by Acosta are not stand-alone events; rather, they are part of an ongoing issue that has been building upon itself for upwards of 30 years. As a result, journalists are now not only facing rigorous backlash in their pursuit of the truth, but public trust in institutions have also significantly declined. This is one feature of Peters’ work he is also passionate about.
The humble beginnings of Peters’ passion for communication law extends all the way back to his childhood with an interest in speech regulation. While he did not know it at the time, the concept of certain words being “off-limits” was something that both frustrated and fascinated him.
“If somebody told me not to say something, I was anti-authoritarian enough that it makes me want to use it even more,” Peters said, laughing. “I didn’t quite get it, I just thought, why? I’m not hating on anybody, I’m not physically harming anyone, what makes a difference if I use the word f--k?”
In the classroom, Peters pushes this question by lacing his lecture with what is normally considered inappropriate words. He does not censor himself nor does he hesitate when inserting “colorful” words into orations. Rather, he uses it as a way to shed reality on particular cases and situations.
One example took place during the afternoon hours of Oct. 2, in which Peters was elaborating on times that trademarked items had received backlash for what had been considered to possess inappropriate words or images.
The lecture hall was filled with laughter and gasps as the slide went on, and while his methods may be considered unconventional by some, they rest well with students within the classroom.
“I really enjoy how Professor Peters personalizes the cases, and how he makes class really interesting,” Caitlyn Gegen said, a journalism and international affairs student who is in Peters’ communication law class. “His sense of humor definitely adds life to the law, and his passion for First Amendment law is evident in his classes.”
Celeste Springer is a fellow junior journalism major from Parker, Colorado. She shared equal sentiments regarding Peters’ choice of cases when elaborating on fundamental areas of law.
“Professor Peters frequently uses real-life, often obscure, media law cases that are both interesting and easy to remember,” Springer said. “Teaching us these scenarios keeps us interested while communication broader concepts of media law, which we are able to apply to more mundane cases later on.”
The application of such diction goes beyond just speech regulation, however. Rather, Peters is seeking to shed light on the current state of communication law, and wants to delve deep into the current issues and misconceptions surrounding it. Furthermore, he hopes to showcase the value behind word-usage and how much of an impact language can hold in the journalistic world.
One issue Peters is concerned about in particular is the future of journalism itself, given the controversy and danger that comes with following such a career path. In recent years, backlash ranges from public outcries against the media with claims of “fake news,” to the arrests or murders of several journalists while doing active reporting.
“One of the difficulties here in the area of fake news is defining ‘fake news’. People can’t agree on what it means, and the president uses it to refer to any story he dislikes, regardless of whether it’s truthful or not,” Peters added, laughing as he said it.
However, he quickly grew silent and paused.
“I think the first thing we have to do if we want to think about resolving the problem is defining the problem,” he continued slowly. “If you can’t agree on what it is, it can’t begin to be addressed.”
When concerning news reporting, Peters theorizes that part of the major issue is truth manipulation, whether this means false reporting, the spread of sham news, or even the denial of fair and honest news reporting altogether. Factors such as these are “often used to the benefit of one or a small handful of actors,” Peters said.
There is a psychological theory called “belongingness” that assumes individuals would rather stand in a group than stand alone. This concept can be applied to numerous settings and examples, but in the context of journalism, is especially prevalent when coming to news media outlets and group associations that are bound together by political thread.
“Bob Woodward once said that it’s unlikely we would ever be able to report truth with a capital ‘T’ in the way philosophers talk about truth,” Peters added reflectively. “The best we can do is get the best obtainable version of the truth, recognizing we all perceive information in slightly different ways through the lenses of life experience, belief systems, culturations and rearing.”
The week following the interview with Professor Peters, CNN released an article concerning Jim Acosta and the taking away of his White House press pass, which included the input Peters had provided in the days prior.
“Relevant precedent says that a journalist has a First Amendment right of access to places closed to the public but open generally to the press,” the quote read. “That includes press rooms and news conferences. In those places, if access is generally inclusive of the press, then access can’t be denied arbitrarily or absent compelling reasons. And the reasons that the White House gave were wholly unconvincing and uncompelling.”
Source List:
Jonathan Peters: jonathan.peters@uga.edu
Joseph Watson: joseph.watson@uga.edu
Caitlyn Gegen: cag27252@uga.edu
Celeste Springer: ecs55620@uga.edu
Comments