“Balancing Act”

The 6th Amendment’s right to a fair trial is getting challenged with how modern media, protected under the 1st amendment, works. Both amendments are necessary for our nation, but often work against each other. This article focuses on high-profile cases, as that is where media can cause the most damage to the right to a fair trial. Going back over 60 years ago, a case with a Cleveland doctor accused of murdering his wife made it to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled the doctor had potential juror bias due to the “uncontrolled media frenzy,” leading them to rule he did not have a fair trial. One has the right to get an unbiased jury without prior knowledge of the case (to help prevent bias), but with how media is, it is getting harder and harder to do just that.

The article then goes on to discus gag-orders – a legal order by a court restricting information  or comment from being made public–  and times when they have been used and worked around.

“Dilemma of Interest”

When I hear the phrase “person of interest,” I think of suspect,  so I found this article particularly interesting because in reality no one has ever formally defined the phrase.  The spokesman for the National Association of Chiefs of Police, Jim Kouri, agreed with me, saying a”‘person of interest’ often is a euphemism for “‘suspect.'” Erin Kinnard added “now we call everybody a ‘person of interest’ because we don’t want to be sued. But in reality, they are our suspects.”

Even when police insist they “just want to talk” to the person, the term “person of interest” clearly casts suspicion onto them. The article brings up the question of with innocent until proven guilty, how legal is this phrase?  I believe it is legal as it is a loose word for suspect, and suspect is not anything illegal. But, I do also think that innocent until proven guilty is becoming something of the past, due to the media. In eyes of the judicial system they may be “innocent” still, but in eyes of the population, thanks to the media, they are guilty whether they committed the crime or not. In Lutner’s, a person of interest in a kidnapping case, case, after being cleared by police, he still is accused of the crime, thanks to the Internet.

Richard Jewell, a security guard for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, discovered a suspicious knapsack containing a bomb. Jewell then led an evacuation. The FBI made him the primary suspect on the case, theorizing that he might have planted the bomb to be seen as a hero. This was leaked to the press. Two bombing survivors sued Jewell. On October 26, 1996, the FBI cleared him as a suspect. After being cleared Jewell sued several media companies for defamation.

A sum was settled with NBC, CNN, New York Post, and Piedmont College.

Cox Enterprises did not settle and the court decided “because the articles in their entirety were substantially true at the time they were published—even though the investigators’ suspicions were ultimately deemed unfounded—they cannot form the basis of a defamation action.” John R. Mather, a Fulton County state court judge, ruled that Jewell was a “public figure.” Mather determined that Jewell made himself a public figure through his extensive media interviews following the bombing. Mr. Jewell’s legal team had never been able to demonstrate that the paper’s coverage had risen to the level of actual malice against the “public figure.”

Appeals were turned down by the Supreme Court of Georgia and the U.S. Supreme Court

Sources: http://law.jrank.org, New York Times, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/readings/jewell.html

• Analysis
  • What is the evidence
    • In a case what are the facts
  • Extrinsic evidence?
    • This means- What other factors are at play here?
      • What’s going on in society?
      • What’s going on in my life or workplace
    • What is the issue
      • What is the problem here?
    • What is the precedent
      • Has this happened before
      • Is there a rule to apply?
      • Or a law?
    • How does my evidence fit the precedent
      • If does not fit what is the logic for extension
      • Or for staying with the Status Quo
    • What is the conclusion
      • What is the “Holding” (Point) of a case
      • What is the – to your mind- ethical action

A case brief should contain the following information, in respective order:

• The facts: Generally outlined at the very beginning of the case, the facts set the stage for the overall issue of the case.

• The issue: The issue is the question that the Supreme Court is answering. It should be in question-form on your brief.

• The rule: The rule is what ultimately comes out of the case. The Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t “make laws,” per se, but their decisions become binding on all of the states because of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Thus, the rule is very important.

• The holding: The holding is generally a one-sentence statement that answers the question asked by the issue of the case.

• The rationale: The rationale is the Court’s reason for making their decision. It is sometimes difficult to ascertain exactly why the Court came to their conclusion; sometimes the rationale is one sentence and other times it is one paragraph. Do the best you can.

• The disposition: Did the Court affirm the lower court’s judgment? Reverse? Reverse and remand?

THANKS TO WIKIPEDIA

Journalists should:

Accuracy and standards for factual reporting

• Reporters are expected to be as accurate as possible given the time allotted to story preparation and the space available, and to seek reliable sources.
• Events with a single eyewitness are reported with attribution. Events with two or more independent eyewitnesses may be reported as fact. Controversial facts are reported with attribution.
• Independent fact-checking by another employee of the publisher is desirable
• Corrections are published when errors are discovered
• Defendants at trial are treated only as having “allegedly” committed crimes, until conviction, when their crimes are generally reported as fact (unless, that is, there is serious controversy about wrongful conviction).
• Opinion surveys and statistical information deserve special treatment to communicate in precise terms any conclusions, to contextualize the results, and to specify accuracy, including estimated error and methodological criticism or flaws.

Slander and libel considerations

• Reporting the truth is almost never libel,^[14] which makes accuracy very important.
• Private persons have privacy rights that must be balanced against the public interest in reporting information about them. Public figures have fewer privacy rights in U.S. law, where reporters are immune from a civil case if they have reported without malice. In Canada, there is no such immunity; reports on public figures must be backed by facts.
• Publishers vigorously defend libel lawsuits filed against their reporters, usually covered by libel insurance.

Harm limitation principle

• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
• Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
• Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
• Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

Presentation

Ethical standards should not be confused with common standards of quality of presentation, including:

• Correctly spoken or written language (often in a widely spoken and formal dialect, such as standard midterm)
• Clarity
• Brevity (or depth, depending on the niche of the publisher)

For October 12th

(Please ignore the giant bold font, please and thank you!!)

Where The Journal News went wrong in publishing names, addresses of gun owners

The Journal News in Westchester, N.Y. published the names and addresses of local citizens who hold gun permits leading to upset citizens publish the names and addresses of journalists at the paper. A New York Senator, Greg Ball, responded with the proposition that would make gun permits private and no longer subject to open record laws.

“Frequently, the work of journalists is not popular. One of our roles is to report publicly available information on timely issues, even when unpopular. We knew publication of the database (as well as the accompanying article providing context) would be controversial, but we felt sharing information about gun permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings.” – Journal News Publisher Janet Hasson

When I read this, I have mixed feelings. Because the article was posted after the Newtown shootings, I feel like this was a bit of a witch hunt. By the Journal News publishing the names and addresses of those who own guns, it sheds a light that one of them may act in a similar manner as Adam Lanza. But, on a personal level, I would appreciate a list of who owns guns in my town. As someone who believes in a strong gun control, I think the public should be aware of who hold these deadly weapons. The defense for this is that the information is public record already, the newspaper is just compiling it and giving the public it in an more accessible way.

Naming Victims of Sex Crimes

Background: 3 kidnapping cases where the parents publicized their kidnapped kids names to the public in order to help them. When the kids were found, they were found out to be sexual assault victims, is it okay to continue to name them? As “you can’t un-name a name any more easily than you can un-ring a bell.”

Dealing with children is always ethically complicated. You have to take into account the child’s age, situation, what the kid wants and what the parents want. If all of that fall into place, interviewing children should be up to media outlets’ own code of ethics.

How a Minneapolis Journalist Turned a Difficult Situation into a Human Triumph

This article concerns the ethical issues journalists have to make with stories the public deserves to know about. In 1987, Jacqui Banaszynski of St. Paul Pioneer Press wrote a series on AIDS, she had some faced tough ethical decisions on every step of the process.

The article then goes on to state the basic duties of journalism

1. seek truth and report it fully

• Be honest
• Inform yourself continually so you can educate the public
• Give the voiceless a voice
• Hold the powerful accountable

2. Act Independently

• Guard the role of free press
• disseminate competing perspectives
• Remain free of associations and activities that may damage your credibility
• Recognize that good ethical decisions require individual responsibility enriched by collaborative efforts

3. Minimize harm

• Be compassionate for those affected by your actions
• Treat subjects and colleagues as human beings
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information might cause harm or discomfort, but balance those negatives by choosing alternatives that maximize truth-telling.

According to these principles above, Banaszynski acted within the basic duties of journalism. To the author of this article, it would be ethical as well as “true ethical decision-making is also about justification, the ability to explain dearly and fully the process of how and why decisions are made.” And, Banaszynski could do just that. I think there is a difference between ethics and morals if we use that definition. But, that is just because everyone has their own set of morals, and they at times can conflict with others.

Reporting on Suicide

The pdf’s purpose was to inform those who write on suicides how to go about doing so. One part I thought was especially important was to make sure when you’re writing about someone’s suicide to treat them as a deceased person. That is also mentioned in “How a Minneapolis Journalist Turned a Difficult Situation into a Human Triumph.” I think it is important people remember this as with today’s media, a big part of writing is writing for people’s attention, but journalist need to report sensitively to certain types of stories.

Liability for intrusive or harassing news-gathering activities

Intrusion is offensive prying with the intentional physical, electronic or mechanical invasion of a person’s solitude. The article states that overzealous surveillance, even in public, can possibly be intrusion. This article is good to know, as I thought that was all a part of going undercover. This makes sense for it to be illegal though.

Red Flags – Society of Professional Journalists

I found this article particular interesting as it gives different instances one should know someone is trying to hide information from you. Reading this article made me think a lot about when the government, or any organization, is being sneaky. I never thought of things like government agencies purchasing new computer systems that make it hard for an ordinary person to read there stored data due to compatibility issues.

Introduction – Society of Professional Journalists

This article made me believe I should take a basic law class. I did not know that as an American we have the Freedom of Information, which is “the right of Americans to have access to government records and meeting.” Although, I like to think this is somewhat justified as in the news we, the American people, are constantly getting told stories of how the government is hiding information from us. The article stated “As a member of America’s news media, you are in the best position to educate and inform Americans about the importance of their Freedom of Information laws,” I believe that one hundred percent, as a citizen, I was slightly oblivious.

 Sunshine Laws – Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

I enjoyed this article as I, as mentioned above, was not very aware on the rights we have to government information. All states, DC, and the federal government have open meeting laws called “sunshine laws.” These are important because the people have the right to know what is happening in their country’s government. There are a few exceptions for secret meetings such as personal matters, collective bargaining sessions, discussions with agency attorneys, and discussion of the acquisition or sale of public porter.

3 Things Journalists can Learn from “Linsanity” – Poynter

Linsanity is the word to describe Jeremy Lin’s breakout performance as a point guard for the New York Nets. The author, Tom Huang, then went on to talk about having to be careful to not stereotype him, and others, while writing as people are “multidimensional.”  Huang goes on to point out how things may seem all well, but comments are reaching a racist level.

I think this is a big issue no a days. People make jokes about people’s background and race without thinking it will affect them, but unless you know the person very well, your joke could impact them greatly.

Drawing a Clearer Line Between News and Opinion – NY TIMES

This article covers putting one’s opinion in news articles, and how it has becoming more prevalent in today media. I agree that opinion articles should be stated that they are an analysis of the news. But, with how frequently opinions are treated as news now a days, it is unlikely this will happen widespread.

Attitudes and Mindsets Hinder Journalists in – Nieman Reports

This article discuses the stigma against Native Americans. A comment that really impacted me was, “good Indians” were also those who adopted farming and Christianity; i.e., they abandoned their cultures and became like whites.” That comment makes you think a lot about how we see Native Americans and immigrants in general. The author then goes on to state how journalists are not putting important background information in their articles. He blames this partly on the need for timeliness in today’s media. That is something we can see repetitively in all articles that are about mistakes journalist make while writing.

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens By and Through Mergens

Facts: Westside High School denied permission to students  to create a Christian club with equal privileges as other student clubs in the school. The school wouldn’t let them form the club based on the Establishment Clause. The students sued as they believed the school violated the Equal Access Act. The Court of Appeals voted in favor of the students

The Issue: Is a public school preventing the formation of a Christian club justified by the Establishment Clause. or is it unlawful because of the Equal Access Act?

The Rule: 8-1 in favor of Mergens By and Through Mergens

The Holding: If a school allows for clubs to be “non curriculum”, then it is prohibited under the Equal Access Act from denying equal access to any club based on their beliefs and speech.

The Rationale: The proposed Christian club would be a noncurriculum group as no course required students to become members of the club, and its subject matter would not be taught in classes, it did not concern the school’s cumulative body of courses, and its members would not receive academic credit for their participation. To uphold the Equal Access Act is needed to avoid discrimination against student religious views. The Court stated that because it served an overriding secular purpose by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of free speech, the Equal Access Act was constitutional

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

Facts: Students of Hazelwood East High School’s student run newspaper, The Spectrum, though the school was violating their First Amendment after they [the school] would not let the paper post two articles due to being “inappropriate”.

The Issue: Was the school not letting The Spectrum post their articles a violation of the students’ First Amendment rights.

The Rule: A 5-3 decision siding with Hazelwood School District

The Holding: The court ruled that the First Amendment did not require schools to positively promote all types of student speech.

The Rationale: As the newspaper was under the school’s sponsorship, they hold the right to refuse all speech that is “‘inconsistent with ‘the shared values of a civilized social order.’’” As long as the banned material is done so with legitimate concerns, it is not offending the First Amendment.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School

Facts: In December 1965, a group of students planned to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War in Des Moines, Iowa. The principal of the local school learned of the plan and made a rule stating if any student was seen with an armband, they would be asked to remove it, failure to do so would result in a suspension. Two teenagers who wore the bands were sent home, the next day, another kid was sent home as well. Their parents sued the school district for violating their right of expression. The district court stated that the school was in the right and they needed to hold up school discipline.

The Issue: Does a ban on wearing armbands, as a protest, in a public school violate students’ freedom of speech, covered by the First Amendment?

The Rule: 7-2 decision siding with Tinker

The Holding: The Supreme Court stated that the armbands represented a pure speech that is separate from the actions of those participating in it, and the students do not lose that right when they step into school.

The Rationale: Because students hold their right to free speech in school, they can act on that as long as it is not interfering with the school’s ability to operate. Des Moines Independent Community School acted before there was an actual disruption, therefore not in the right. There is a difference in communication through word and action, leaving children without a full guarantee for the full extent of the first amendment.

The disposition: THE SCOTUS revered the previous rulings.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser

Facts: A student used a sexual innuendo at a school assembly. He got suspended for two days as a result.

The Issue: Does the First Amendment protect a student from making a lewd speech at a school assembly without discipline?

The Rule: 7-2 ruling siding with Bethel School District

The Holding: The Court ruled a school can prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language.

Rationale: There is a difference between political speech, like in Tinker in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School, and a speech which holds supposed sexual content, like Fraser’s. Lewd language was inconsistent with the “fundamental values of public school education”, therefore can be banned.

In the article “Anonymous Sources,” the author explains how to go about writing with anonymous sources. The article discusses how although anonymous sources are necessary, they can also be harmful. I completely agree. At times, it may harm people to have their name in the post, so when they want to come out with their story, they would not  be able to without anonymity. But, on the other side, anonymity can cause doubt in readers as it is hard to confirm the give details. Overall, a journalist should only work with anonymous sources if absolutely necessary. But, what happens when there are no sources that wish to come forward? This was an issue for Jamilia Gates, the former news editor Marshall University’s student newspaper, The Parthenon. When writing an article about the racism in the Greek Life’s “thug and gangsta” party, she could not get any of the sorority or fraternity involved to comment on the situation, leaving an inadequate amount of sources. But because the paper wanted their voice heard, they posted this article in the letters column of the paper. I have a hard time ethically with this story, as it is mentioned how Gates saw the pictures from this party, but did not print or save the evidence. If Gates was so outraged and planned on writing about the party, in my opinion, she should have collected more evidence.

In Beth Winegarner’s article “5 Tips for Journalists Who Want to do a Better Job of Cultivating Sources,” she talks about how to gain relationships with sources. She discusses how to speak with a potential source: show interest, check in with them, so not break their trust, ask for other potential sources, and to not get too friendly with them. I found this arrival particular helpful as I am majoring in business and the first two tips of Winegardner’s article can relate very closely how to act with potential employers/ business associates.

Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

Two ABC producers got jobs at Food Lion grocery stores by submitting fake applications in order to go undercover in their meat departments. ABC used undercover cameras to record Food Lion’s unhealthy and illegal practices. Food Lion sued ABC in federal court alleging fraud, breach of duty of loyalty, trespass and unfair trade practices. A jury found ABC guilty of fraud, trespass and disloyalty. ABC’s appeal lead to a rejection in the fraud charge as it did not cause injury, but they did conclude that the  ABC producers trespassed as they did not have the right to video areas that were non-public areas.

The hidden cameras is what got the ABC producers in trouble. Bob Steele of Poynter.org writes how hidden cameras should be used rarely and only as the last resort. They are getting used so often that they are becoming dull and losing their impact. Steele also discusses how ethical lying is when trying to report in the best interest of the people. Personally, in this case, I feel very biased, as thinking about the handling of food, I believe the people should know what happens to products they ingest, but I also can see where ABC went wrong. Although ABC may not have acted in the most ethical manner, I do not hold anything against them as I believe their story informed the public of the health issues of Food Lion. When it comes to the ethics of How to Catch a Predator people run into the same issues. As a society, we try to protect our young in anyway possible, so shows like this are popular so people can be aware of those who do not have the best intentions. The issue with this is, the people on this show, and those like it, have not been convicted in a court of law, yet automatically are seem as guilty in the eyes of millions of Americans. Yes, the “predator” is walking into a situation he himself set up, but there still seems to be an issue as it is not as if the cops set this up to catch him, there is an huge entertainment aspect involved.

Curtis Publishing Company v. Wally Butts

The Facts: In 1967 the newspaper Saturday Evening Post published an article claiming that Wally Butts, the head football coach for University of Georgia, and Bear Bryant, Alabama’s head coach, had conspired to a major game. Wally Butts sued for libel and won. After New York Times v. Sullivan was decided, Curtis Publishing requested a new trial.

The Issue: Can the public official clause in the First Amendment, that protected others under New York Times v. Sullivan, be extended to public figures?

The Rule: Ruled 5 – 4 for Wally Butts

The Holding: A public figure may collect damages if they can prove there was a lack of reasonable credibility in the published work.

The Rationale: The court did not believe that Curtis Publishing Company met the journalistic standards for backing their claims and were reckless in their story.

The disposition: The Supreme Court upheld the previous decision, but lessened the 3 million dollar  pay-out to $460 thousand dollars.

The Facts: A Montgomery city commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, filed a libel action against New York Times and four black ministers  due to a full-page ad in the New York Times that claimed the arrest of the Martin Luther King Jr. for perjury by Montgomery police was part of a campaign to destroy King’s civil rights effort.

The Issue: Can a public figure receive damages in a libel suit, if malice cannot be proven?

The Rule: The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 for the New York Times.

The Holding: One cannot receive damages in a libel action suit unless actual malice can be proved.

The Rationale: They ruled in favor of the New York Times as the First Amendment covers free publication of all statements as long as they are not made with malice .

The disposition: The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Supreme Court of Alabama’s decision.