Notes for 11/9/15 Class

Zacchini v.Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company

The facts: A free lance reporter recorded footage of a performer doing a stunt and the footage was aired on TV, then the performer tried to sue the broadcasting company because he felt footage of him was his property.

• The issue: Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments immunize the Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. from damages for its alleged infringement of an entertainer’s state-law right of publicity?

• The rule: The first amendment protects free speech, while the fourteenth protects property, the question that lies within this case is does the rule protect the defendant or the respondent.

• The holding: The amendment mentioned above do not allow the media to broadcast a performers act in its entirety without their consent.

• The rationale: Broadcasting part of a performance is considered newsworthy, therefor broadcasting entities are allowed to air pieces of a performance without permission, but the entire act was determined to be categorically different and requires the consent of the performer.

“Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company.” Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 9, 2015. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/76-577>

 

Lying to Get the Truth

This piece published on the American Journalism Review website, although quite long, presented readers with an interesting perspective on undercover journalism. I feel like in movies we always see journalists being portrayed as being ultra sneaky and always going  undercover, almost like spies, but in reality that’s not really the case. This article talks about how Silverstein creates a fake identity and company and takes on the lobbying groups in Washington. All the companies bought his alter-ego, and took the bait, and from the there a story was crafted on how lobbying is a big money business and it’s tactic’s are often questionable at best. His findings revealed some things that weren’t necessarily common knowledge, and made the public more aware of how business is done in Washington. Personally, I don’t think that the findings helped a lot, as it is noted that the company’s clientele remained loyal, but with the same facts in mind I also don’t see it being very harmful, it just happened.

The latter part of the piece focuses more on how this had an effect on public perception of journalists, and how other journalists and media officials responded to Silverstein’s undercover ventures. It is argued quite in depth that since Silverstein used sneaky tactics to gain access and was willing to lie about his identity for the information, how do readers know that he is also not lying about the information. Some more public figures like Fuller who was mentioned several times in the piece said things like “We would not allow reporters to misrepresent themselves in any way, and I don’t think we would be the hidden owners of anything,”. It is quite apparent that many didnt like the tactics used, and find undercover journalism to be un-sensational and cause for questions on validity to arise. Silverstein took to the criticism saying “I could have written about sleazy lobbyists. I’ve written that story before,” Silverstein says. “It was in the way that they behave, the presentation, that gives the story its impact. I think it’s in the public interest to present that story.”, basically saying that he regrets nothing and feels that he is doing the public good.

Personally, I don’t see that much wrong with the whole act of undercover journalism. Our country, along with all other nations, use spies all the time to spy on subjects that they think are being disloyal, so as journalists seek truth and represent the public, why can’t we as the public employ them to be our spies who look into matters? I also don’t necesarily think that this makes journalists less likely for the public to trust, yes maybe the people being reported may not trust them, but why would the public trust them any less? We always say media lies, so I think this just is another instance where we should decide for ourselves. The only fault I think Silverstein made was not going back for comments from the company, there is nothing less satisfying to read than a completely one sided story, and i feel that the companies input would have given a more rounded representation of the issue at hand.

 

The landmark Food Lion case

This was a rather short read, and basically just talked about how news gathering entities aren’t protected by the First amendment if they seek a job by using false information with intentions to only stay for a short time and use footage gathered at said job for a news story. The case that this claim was based off of involved two ABC employees seeking employment at Food Lion where they worked for two short weeks gathering footage and inside information on the way that the meat there was handled and sold. They aired the footage and claimed that Food Lion and it’s employees used unsafe and unsanitary practices in regards to their meat. Food Lion initially sought out to sue ABC for fraud, breach of the duty of loyalty, trespass and unfair trade practices under North Carolina law. The case went through several courts before “The court held that the lower court correctly declined to apply a First Amendment analysis to Food Lion’s breach of loyalty and trespass claims. The laws regarding employee loyalty and trespass were laws of general application, from which the press could not be exempt, and the application of those laws to the media would have merely “an ‘incidental effect’ on newsgathering,” the court found. (Ramussen)”.

 

Recording — State hidden camera statutes

For journalist, this, in my opinion, may be one of the most important reads out there. It provides a general outline of the laws that involve recording both audio of conversations and video surveillance. Since I think that these may be important things to know, I will provide an even more summarized version of these guidelines.

– If both parties openly consent to audio recording it is legal, this includes scenarios that the recording device is openly visible in which consent is presumed.

– In 38 out of 50 states, including Ohio, allow you to record a conversation to which you are a party without consent of the other parties. Federal wiretap statutes also permit this so-called one-party-consent recording of telephone conversations in most circumstances although state laws may have different laws in regards to wire tapping.

– The federal wiretap law, passed in 1968, permits surreptitious recording of conversations when one party consents, “unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.”

-Most of the states permit the recording of speeches and conversations that take place where the parties may reasonably expect to be recorded.

– The laws of 13 states expressly prohibit the unauthorized installation or use of cameras in private places, although Ohio is not one of these. Be extra careful with this law as if convicted, you may be faced with a felony in some states.

https://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment-handbook/introduction-recording-state-hidden-camera-statutes

 

The Ethics of Undercover Journalism

This article seemed very similar to the “Lying to get the Truth” article we also read for class today. This article focused on O’Keefe and his very unorthodox tactics of gathering information and creating stories, with a even greater focus on how he did this in regards to trying to tap into a New Orleans senators phone to see if she was in fact ignoring her constituents calls. O’Keefe defended himself and the way he works by saying the following: “on reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation,” he also told Hannity he was operating in an established tradition: “We used the same tactics that investigative journalists have been using. In all the videos I do, I pose as something I’m not to try to get to the bottom of the truth.”. This piece goes on to mention that the motivation for O’Keefe to do these things are even more unorthodox and cloud the idea that he may or may not be a true journalist. The author also mentions a couple other cases of undercover journalism that we have read about for today. I think the most important information in this piece is in regards to when undercover journalism may be acceptable, since it is widely apparent many people dislike such tactics. It is stated in this piece which is a citation from Bob Steele, They state that deception and hidden cameras may be appropriate:

– When the information obtained is of profound importance. It must be of vital public interest, such as revealing great “system failure” at the top      levels, or it must prevent profound harm to individuals.

– When all other alternatives for obtaining the same information have been exhausted.

One thought on “Notes for 11/9/15 Class

  1. I believe that both this class, and the readings addressed some issues that are very relevant today since the ability to record both audio and visual is so accessible. The discussion today helped me better understand in what scenarios that recording conversations is considered legal and ways in which it can be punishable. I also really liked hearing everyone’s varying ideas on going undercover in the Food Lion case, and while many people did present valid ideas I personally think that it was justifiable only if all other reporting techniques were exerted prior because it was a matter of public health. I also enjoyed the discussion on whether going undercover can alter a persons credibility and after hearing everyone’s opinion, I think that as long as they disclose all reasoning and finding afterwards than it can be considered justifiable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *