“Hello, My Name Is Stephen Glass, and I’m Sorry” by Hanna Rosin

This article is a story of Stephen Glass, a journalist – also the head of The New Republic‘s fact checking department –  who fabricated stories. Steve filled notebooks with fake interview notes, fake business cards and fake voice mails. Once the story broke, Glass went into hiding for a while, he later sent apology notes and tried to pass the California and New York state bar (failing to do both). Glass now works as a director of special projects at a personal-injury law firm.

Rosin, the author, met up with Glass. His explanation is he wanted to loved and he never made up stories for fun, he was anxious the whole way through it. The article states his falsification of stories could have steamed from his parents calling The New Republic a “sandbox.”

I believe Glass’s life should not be ruined because of this, but his career as a journalist rightfully was. He disregarded numerous rules of journalism. He was not accountable, one could say  he caused harm by lying and he did not seek truth and instead reported lies.

“It means that forgiveness is a choice, and I decided to make it.” – Hanna Rosin

I thought it was powerful how she decided to end the article. Her declaring that she forgave him gives readers a sense of ending, also that statement is very relatable for readers.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

“4 Reasons why linking is good journalism…”    by: Steve Buttry

Buttry covers why  linking is good for journalism. The first reason being it is good journalism. He states is shows readers that you are honest by acknowledging that some work came before yours. Secondly, he states transparency is good journalism. The whole point of this is to “show your work.” Third off is attribution is good journalism. He states that in the digital age we live in attribution is incomplete without a link. Lastly, he states context is goof journalism. A link can provide more context or more of the story to people who want to know more. Buttry also states it’s good for business. He says having links in your articles can help search engines find your work, which will most likely increase your page’s views, and help interested people find your work.

In my opinion, I think as long as an author puts the article title and author (so it’s easy to search) in their article, it is ethical. But, linking makes it a lot more convenient for readers to access information used.

“5 Ways News Organizations respond to ‘unpublishing’ requests” by: Mallory Jean Tenors

This article covers the relationship between news organizations and unpublishing requests. First it’s important to understand why people may make such a request: sources believe that a story was unfair or inaccurate, those who have had charges dropped want the stories to be removed, source remorse, or writer remorse. Now, how does one handle such a request? Unpublish the story is one way. This tends to be the last resort. Another option is to write an addendum – this usually only happens when someone was charged of a major crime, then the charges dropped. Writing a follow up-story is another option. These are usually not favored as it takes time, but it does offer more context than an addendum does. You can also take out a source’s name and remove the story form Google’s cache. Lastly, they can run a correction of the story.

“A Note to our Readers” by: Rolling Stone (Will Dana)

This article is what Rolling Stones put out after finding out (and getting called out for) their story about the UVA rape was fake. I believe this is good for them to do, and I hope it sat on the front page of their website for at least a week for people to see when they clicked on their website, and was published in an article. Once a story is written there is a certain amount of damage that can’t get undone, but it is imperative for news sources to do the best they can to correct themselves and make the public aware.

“How journalists can do a better job of correcting errors on social media” by: Craig Silverman

Silverman writes how corrections have been a thing for hundreds of years.

-The Times puts all their corrections in one place.

– 63% of readers felt better when they saw corrections

– “The initial, mistaken information will be tweeted more than any subsequent correction” That fact just backs up what I said earlier, how once bad information is out, there will be damage that cannot be undone.

– he advises to promote your corrections to make up the most damage

The world we live in, that demands instant news, leaves a lot of room for incorrect information. This is incredibly dangerous as it is proven corrections do not always get seen as much as the original material. Because of this, readers need to be extremely aware to check their facts.

“The best ways for publisher to build credibility through transparency” by: Craig Silverman

This article gives five key areas to show transparency and credibility in one’s work:

1. Show the reporting and sources that support your work
2. Collaborate with the audience
3. Curate and attribute information responsibly
4. Offer disclosures and statements of values
5. Correct website and social media errors effectively

The article goes on to state why transparency is so important. “If journalists are truth seekers, it must follow that they be honest and truthful with their audiences, too — that they be truth presenters..” that is a comment I really agree with. Audiences have a trust in journalists and it is there responsibility deceit them.

“Do Times Journalists Pay Attention to Readers’ Comments?” by: Margaret Sullivan

The general agreement of this article is that for hot-topic issues (religion included) journalists do not always read their comments due to commenters not being insightful in their message. Comments are a great way for journalists and readers to connect and should be used, maybe not always, but for the most part.

“Do You Trust Rolling Stone” by: Andrew Seaman

I agree with the statement Sheila Coronel made that each story should be based on its merits. I think if a news source is constantly getting stories incorrect, then you should move to a new source, but if it is a rare occurrence, then judging on an individual basis is what should be done.

The article mentions how the author of the UVA rape article continues to work for Rolling Stone. In my opinion, mistakes happen and as long as they are admitted and dealt with appropriately, a second chance should be given.

The article states how Rolling stones should implement change. I believe they must have. The magazine does not want something to happen like the rape article to happen again. Because of this, they had to have made some change to their editing system.

“Lyin’ Williams” by: Mike Sisak

I 100% do not understand this guy… One simply does mistake the fact they were (or in this case was not) in the middle of an air attack. His excuse of him having a fogged memory is actually laughable. I’m having trouble writing about this because I think it is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of.

On the case of Mike Sisak’s reporting of the story (on a blog maybe?). I think he did a great job, as it was easy to read, but gave readers multiple examples of Brian Williams lying about this.

“What We Should Ask About Williams’ Mistake” by: Andrew Seaman

The author gives the possible medical reason – each time he tells the story he is retrieving it, and there was errors in the memory retrieval.

The author also explores the ethical reason of how you expect your news to have accuracy and be credible, and Williams was not either.

At the end of the article we are told that Williams was suspended for six months without pay. I think that is justified for them to do. I just do no understand how someone can tell a lie that bad to so many people. I predict that the trust of viewers for William’s stories are going to go down, as they should.

“Political Polling’s Unfavorables Are on the Rise”

By: David A. Graham

This article reports that Gallup is no longer polling on the presidential primaries or general elections after how wrong they were on the last one. The article goes on to state that media reports junk polls without adequate scrutiny. That is something I agree with, when researching for my “hot topic” I read that most news outlets want to report the most drastic news, not always the most predictable (which may be way more reliable).

“Horse Race Coverage & the Political Spectacle”

by: Matthew C. Nisbet

Over the past forty years, there has been a rise in horse race journalism. In the 2007 presidential primary coverage it was found that this type of reporting was accounted for 63% of print and TV stories analyzed. Patterson fears  that the focus on the game over substance undermines the ability of citizens to learn from coverage and to reach informed decisions in elections or about policy debates. Personally, I find it dangerous how much polling is reported on, as polling is not always accurate. But, I feel like people should be allowed to report it. Audiences should not take the results too seriously.

I enjoyed the dynamic (three lawyers in one room) of 11/2’s class. I expected a relatively clear cut rules for freedom of information, but I learned FOIA is anything but. One of the speakers challenged everything said, which although grew frustrating, helped stretch my way of thinking and showed me how many complicated FOIA and the Sunshine Laws are.

“The landmark Food Lion case”

By: Kristen Rasmussen on Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (also can  be found under “Sources and Deception” from 9/27)

Background: If journalists lie on employment application to gain access to private facilities in hopes to gather news, they are not protected by the First Amendment and could be liable for trespass and other offenses.

Two ABC producers got jobs at Food Lion’s meat department by submitted false information on applications. Food Lion sued for fraud, breath of the duty of loyalty, trespass and unfair trade after ABC broadcasted a report about their unsafe food preparations on “PrimeTime Live.”  A jury found ABC liable for fraud, trespass and disloyalty. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the fraud claim, but upheld the monetary award for breach of loyalty and trespass.

Fraud – no : Food Lion could not prove anyone suffered an injury due to the producers misrepersentations

Trespass – yes : Had permission to be in the store because they were hired, but not film in non-public ares.

employee loyalty and trespass : laws of general application, from which the press could not be exempt

“Introduction: Recording — State hidden camera statutes”

By: Reporters Committee For Freedom of the press

Laws :

– You may record, film, broadcast or amplify any conversation if all parties to the conversation consent. It is always legal to record or film a face-to-face interview when your recorder or camera is in plain view, as consent is presumed.

– In 38 states (+ DC) you can record a conversation without informing the other parties

– California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington forbid the recording of private conversations

-The federal wiretap law permits surreptitious recording of conversations when one party consents unless for the purpose of committing any criminal act

-Many of the state statutes make possession of wiretapping devices a crime even though one-party consent to taping conversations may be allowed.

– The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bartnicki v. Vopper in May 2001 that the media could not be held liable for damages under the federal statute for publishing or broadcasting information that the media obtained from a source who had conducted an illegal wiretap.

-The Federal Communications Commission also has adopted a policy, known as the “Telephone Rule,”⁴ which requires a reporter who records a telephone conversation that will later be broadcast to inform the other party that the recording is intended for broadcast.

– In Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Utah, installation or use of any device for photographing, observing or overhearing events or sounds in a private place without the permission of the people photographed or observed is against the law

I think the information in this article is necessary to know for all journalists. One thing I found particularly interesting is that it is not illegal to record people or events in a private place without consent everywhere. It is scary for me to think I can be in a safe zone but in reality, being secretly taped. This article also shows the importance of checking every states laws carefully before reporting there.

“The Ethics of Undercover Journalism”

By: Greg Marx of the Columbia Journalism Review

I think this article was a solid conclusion article because it very briefly discuses previous articles we were assigned to read. It discussed O’Keefe ACORN videos, Food Lion, “To Catch a Predator”, and the checklist for journalists created by Bob Steele.

“Lying to Get the Truth”

By: Mark Lisheron of AJR

Kenneth Case and Ricardo, both of The Maldon Group, had interest in Turkmenistan, so they went to Cassidy & Associates, one of the most powerful lobbying firms in Washington. But, it turns out there was no Maldon Group or even Kenneth Case. Case was an undercover reporter of Harper’s Magazine named Ken Silverstein. Silverstein stated lying “gave readers a rare glimpse into an institutionalized amorality throttling U.S. policy, a view they most certainly wouldn’t have gotten any other way.”

I would probably never go to that extreme while reporting, because there gets to a point where it would cross my morals, and I believe if a job makes you breaks your morals, it is the wrong job for you. But, if Silverstein was not morally objected to doing so, and it isn’t illegal, it is up to him what he wants to do to get the story. He wrote and did what he did for the public’s best interest: ” I think it’s in the public interest to present that story.”

 “Sad for 60 Minutes”

By:  Sam Quinones author of True Tales: A Reporter’s Blog

This article is about 60 Minutes stealing ideas that came from Quinones and his book, without credit. Quinones wrote how he spent years investigating the opiate problem in Ohio, only for 60 minutes so steal much of his information. This upsets me because the author, Sam Quinones, worked hard to male this book a reality and he got many of his ideas stolen. Although we cannot be 100% everything was taken from him, if Quinones was telling the truth, then the producers of 60 Minutes would have been very aware of Quinones and his ideas.

What is the evidence

Hugo Zacchini performed a “human cannonball” act, a Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. free-lance reporter record the event, which aired on the news. Zacchini  sued.

Extrinsic evidence

– Members of the public attending the fair were not charged a separate admission fee to observe his act

-the performance was invented by is father and only was preformed by his family for the last fifty years

What is the issue

Does the First and Fourteenth Amendments give the Defendant the right to broadcast Plaintiff’s entire stunt without compensation?

What is the precedent

Time, Inc. v. Hill : The Court explained that absent a finding of such malicious intent on the part of a publisher, press statements are protected under the First Amendment even if they are otherwise false or inaccurate. (Oyez.org)

How does my evidence fit the precedent

– There was no malicious intent in the broadcast

What is the conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the state court’s decision that the Scripps-Howard infringed on a common copyright law.  The Ohio Supreme Court stated that Scripps-Howard is constitutionally privileged to include in its newscasts matters of public interest that would otherwise be protected by the right of publicity, absent an intent to injure or to appropriate for some nonprivileged purpose.

“…..we are quite sure that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the media when they broadcast a performer’s entire act without his consent.”

Because the performance was free with admission to the fair grounds, I do not have an ethical problem with it getting shown on TV, especially due to the kind words spoken about the event. I agree with the courts on this case.

I used JUSTIA as well

Lisa Abraham and James McCarty spoke in class on 10/26. At first I thought Lisa Abraham went too far by going to jail for something so small, but as I heard her speak more, it really hit me how important it is as an journalist to protect your sources. If someone gives away their sources, they may not ever be able to regain trust with other potential sources. The government trying to force journalist to give up their sources (and information) can lead to a person losing their credibility, meaning getting less work.

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/YellowBook

Ohio Protections for Sources and Source Material

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/ohio/ohio-protections-sources-and-source-material

Ohio has a shield law that may protect you from having to reveal the identity of your sources. However, the shield law only appears to cover those working for newspapers, press associations, and traditional radio and television broadcast stations. Ohio state courts do not recognize a “reporter’s privilege” based on the U.S. Constitution or the Ohio Constitution. Nor do they recognize a common law privilege for reporters.

Federal courts in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses Ohio, recognize a qualified “reporter’s privilege” based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, the scope of this privilege is uncertain because courts in the Sixth Circuit have only addressed the reporter’s privilege in two cases.

The Privacy Protection Act may protect you against the search and/or seizure, in connection with a criminal investigation or prosecution, of materials you possess in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication. This federal statutory protection applies regardless of the state in which you live.

Ohio’s shield law is made up of two provisions — Ohio Rev. Code § 2739.04 (broadcast) and Ohio Rev. Code § 2739.12 (newspapers).

Who is Covered?

Ohio’s shield law applies to

• anyone “engaged in the work of, or connected with, or employed by any newspaper or any press association for the purpose of gathering, procuring, compiling, editing, disseminating, or publishing news” (Ohio Rev. Code § 2739.12); or
• anyone “engaged in the work of, or connected with, or employed by any noncommercial educational or commercial radio broadcasting station, or any noncommercial educational or commercial television broadcasting station, or network of such stations, for the purpose of gathering, procuring, compiling, editing, disseminating, publishing, or broadcasting news.” (Ohio Rev. Code § 2739.04).

The shield law provisions also specify that the person seeking to protect the identity of a source must have obtained information from the source “in the course of . . . employment.”

The statutory language is broad enough to cover owners, employees, and freelancers working for newspapers, press associations, and broadcasting stations in any news-related capacity, but does not appear to cover individuals working in other media. One federal court applying Ohio law found that Dunn Bradstreet, a provider of business information, could not take advantage of the shield because it did not fit into the category of “newspaper or . . . press association.” Deltec, Inc. v. Dunn & Bradstreet, 187 F. Supp. 768 (N.D. Ohio 1960). The CMLP is not aware of any cases interpreting this statutory language in an online or non-traditional journalism context. A court could give this language an expansive interpretation, but, for now at least, online publishers should not expect to be covered by the Ohio shield law.

What Information is Protected?

The Ohio shield law protects the identity of sources only. It does not protect any other information obtained during the newsgathering process. The identity of your source need not be confidential for you to be protected by the shield.

How Strong is the Protection?

Ohio’s shield law provides absolute protection in most cases. This means that, if you are covered by the shield law, a court generally cannot order you to reveal the identity of a source regardless of the need of the party requesting it. The protection may be weaker when a criminal defendant seeks information from you, because courts must protect the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial (including, the ability to mount a defense). In addition, some Ohoi courts have denied protection altogether when the person invoking the shield was a defendant in a libel case.

For more detailed information about the Ohio shield law, see the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s Privilege Compendium: Ohio.

Constitutional Protection in Federal Court

Federal courts in the Sixth Circuit, which encompasses Ohio, have recognized a qualified reporter’s privilege based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To date, courts have applied it to the identity of confidential sources only.

Who is Covered?

The scope of the federal reporter’s privilege is uncertain in federal court in Ohio. Some lower federal courts in the Sixth Circuit have applied the privilege to individuals outside the traditional press, such as writers of a non-profit organization’s newsletter and a freelance writer. These cases do not have weight as precedent, so it is uncertain whether other courts would follow them.

What Information is Protected?

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the reporter’s privilege protects the identity of confidential sources. The Court of Appeals and lower courts have not yet decided whether the privilege protects other information or non-confidential sources.

How Strong is the Protection?

The federal reporter’s privilege is qualified. That means that, even if you are protected by the privilege, a court or other legal body may order disclosure of the information in question upon a strong showing of need by the party seeking the information.

Federal courts in the Sixth Circuit have not determined whether the reporter’s privilege applies in cases where a criminal defendant or prosecutor in a criminal case is seeking information from a reporter. It does not apply when a grand jury issues a subpoena requesting information.

For additional information, see the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s Privilege Compendium: 6th Circuit.

Privacy Protection Act

The Privacy Protection Act (PPA) makes it unlawful for government officials to search for or seize work product or documentary materials possessed by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication. 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa(a),(b). If you are covered by the PPA, it can protect you from both state and federal officials, regardless of what state you live in. To learn more about the PPA, see General: Legal Protections for Confidential Sources and Source Material.