2.1 Reporter’s Notebook: NYT v. Sullivan

The issue in this seminal court cases surrounds the First Amendment and what constitutes libel/slander in the media. Before this case, freedom of speech was a narrow definition, making it harder for reporters to actively report on deeper news. In 1960, a group of black ministers ran an ad in the New York Times criticizing the South’s response to the civil rights movement. In response, Montgomery’s Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, asked for a retraction, and when he was denied that, he sued the paper. In the Alabama Supreme Court, Sullivan’s side was taken when the judge redefined libel and malice to include “irresponsibility.”

The argument provided by Sullivan was that the ad was libelous to him and other Southern officials, even though it was not a direct attack. The other side supported a broader definition of the First Amendment, giving reporters and general citizens the leeway to say what they want, except when actual malice is present.

A glaring extrinsic factor is the civil rights movement engaged in the background, along with the fact that this court case surrounded one of the most racist states at the time. If the state court case had been in a northern state, Sullivan may not have won initially. And because the four ministers were black, they already had somewhat of a target on their back when entering this case.

Once the Supreme Court took the case, the vote was unanimous that the First Amendment does protect against all publication, except for when actual malice is present. This helped broaden the purview of the Constitution and set the stage for other situations like this one, where the citizen is now more protected from the government.

I agree with the Court’s decision because anyone can claim any published piece is libelous, even when it isn’t. The decision of this case helped protect the citizen from a government that is looking to oppress freedom of speech, and one that has much more power than the ordinary person. The article out of The Atlantic mentioned that without this case, The Pentagon Papers and other truth-revealing monuments might not have occurred. As a reporter, I never want to water down my content to appease those higher than me. I believe that I serve a function to the people, first and foremost, and the truth, and without this case, it is uncertain that there ever would have been a time that I was given this right.

1.25 Reporter’s Notebook – Rolling Stone: A Rape on Campus

As a journalist, it is important to report the truth, while also sometimes delivering a human side to a topic at hand. Rolling Stone’s 2014 article on campus rape at the University of Virginia did, in fact deliver, a compelling story, but failed to meet the factual requirements of a piece with integrity.

In the year since the article was published and then retracted, a swirl of debate has surrounded the subject and grounds for which this subject was covered. The main flaw in the process of this article is the lack of fact checking and gathering of more sources – aside from the student who seemingly retold her rape. The writer of the article put all of her faith into a single source, one with a highly subjective point of view, without confirming these details in full. Furthermore, there is now a raised discussion on how publications should cover stories of sexual assault, so that the victim’s voice is heard but the truth is completely presented. Even though Rolling Stone retracted the article, the University of Virginia still has concerns over how their administration and campus were presented in it.

The Columbia School of Journalism’s analysis of what went wrong during the process of uncovers the missteps by both Sabrina Erdely, the writer of the article, and her editors. All parties involved do agree on one thing: that the article is not the truth and contains fabricated material from the main source relied on. However, the University of Virginia takes it a step further in protecting their reputation as an institution, since Erdely’s depiction of the deans and officials involved is not unbiased. When discussing the steps “Jackie” had taken in reporting her assault to school officials, the deans were presented as cold and unresponsive, and Jackie’s testimony took precedence over quotes from the UVA administration. One paragraph of Erdely’s article mentions that the “UVA public-relations team seemed unenthused about this article, canceling my interview with the head of UVA’s Sexual Misconduct Board, and forbidding other administrators from cooperating…”

Even when a reporter fails to gather appropriate and truthful information, they should have a team behind them to sift through this information so that only content with integrity is presented to the audience. The Columbia analysis mentioned that every story has an assigned fact checker and that the editors were too trusting of Erdely and Jackie when reviewing the story. There were so many players in this story’s scenario, yet only one was given the ultimate point of view.

A possible extrinsic factor that contributed to the issue here is the relevant debate over campus sexual assault and how to cover it in the media. Stories surrounding this particular topic are often controversial and spark a conversation, so how a writer covers it is important. With the Rolling Stone article, Erdely was faced with developing and sharing Jackie’s story, while uncovering the the broader context of rape on university campuses. Ultimately, with these kinds of stories in general, the reader may come to identify a “bad guy” and a “good guy”. So even though Erdely and the editorial staff lacked in sufficient measures to prevent the situation, the sensitivity of the topic provided another issue. Another extrinsic factor is the anonymity both present in a touchy topic and in the digital age. Jackie did not want her real name to be used, nor the names of her friends and alleged assaulter. This makes readers more reluctant to accept the story as the truth, since it was so easy for Jackie to manipulate those involved to tell her story. The Washington Post article on “catfishing” brings up the same point because, through any other medium besides face-to-face, it is hard to know who a person really is – or in this case – if that person even exists.

The author’s position in the two articles analyzing what went wrong both have the same position – that Erdely and her staff were particularly careless in compiling and editing such a story. The Washington Post article brings up the simple point that if Erdely had just interviewed Jackie’s friend, Ryan Duffin, then she would have probably caught the discrepancies between the recounting they had both received. The analysis by Columbia details even more the mistakes made, making the entire process seem sloppy and avoidable. The comments by Erdely and her staff make it clear that they now realize their wrongdoings and can rebuild from here. In UVA’s opinion, the article is biased and makes the school’s administration seem unresponsive and rigid. They argued that their campus officials did what they could, and are not as cold as the story made them – and other institutions – out to be.

After reading the originally published article and the two articles examining what went wrong, I believe that Erdely and her staff are too blame for the missteps during the process of writing this story. A source can lie all the way want, but it is a journalist’s basic job to uncover any lies or discrepancies that may be present. Yes, Erdely’s job was a tough one, but as a journalist, this should be expected when covering some topics. Erdely relied too much on one source, one who had too much sway in the decisions Erdely should have been making on her own. Jackie was allowed too much manipulation of the story’s content and the input of other sources to ever present a story that covered all sides of the issue. Even though Erdely was a seasoned writer, her editors should have looked more closely into what was going into such a prominent and sensitive story. I also do think that the article presented UVA in a bad light. It is okay to bring injustices to the surface, but a journalist should not bring their own grievances about getting comments to the table. That is truly not fair.

The first time I read through the Columbia School of Journalism’s analysis, I was scared to ever pursue a hard-hitting story or any story where I could make mistakes easier. The last thing a journalist wants is to retract a story, which puts both their integrity and their publication’s at risk. But looking through the analysis a few more times, I realized that if careful planning and searching is used, then a story can successfully do its unbiased job.