A closer look at privacy, privilege and libel

As we wrap up our examination of law and ethical issues in journalism, I invite you to briefly take a look at three examples of situations that involve reporter's privilege, libel and the right to privacy.

One of the more well known cases involving reporter's privilege occurred several years ago when former New York Times reporter Judith Miller spent three months in jail. It's a rather complicated case, but this is a brief synopsis of it.

As you know, defamation involves either slander through the spoken word or libel through the printed word. But what about social media? Is it only professional journalists who have to worry about these things? Read this article to learn more.

Finally, it seems like technology often leads to less privacy. With the popularity of cell phones and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, do you think people are unconcerned with privacy? The Supreme Court is currently considering a case where technology and privacy are diametrically opposed. 

You can share your thoughts on any or all of these issues.


Flickr Creative Commons photo by Sean MacEntee

Lessons in the Right to Privacy

As Americans, we enjoy many rights, but the Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and some amendments in the Bill of Rights protect specific aspects of privacy. The 1st Amendment, for example, protects the privacy of beliefs (freedom of religion).

Defamation law recognizes differences between public and private figures. Unlike most people, who are considered private citizens, a politician or a celebrity is considered a public figure. So if your next-door neighbor is having an affair, publishing a story about it in the local paper would be a clear violation of his privacy. However, when a public figure does the same thing, the press can reasonably assert that such an event is newsworthy. Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, for example, waged a prolonged legal battle claiming that hundreds of text messages detailing his illicit affair with a co-worker were private. He lost and ended up going to jail for perjury and other charges. 

But sometimes a private citizen injects himself or herself on to the public stage, and by doing so, loses the defense of "right to privacy". If that neighbor of yours is having an affair with a 16-year-old, that information is no longer considered private. Thus the law attempts to balance the public's right to know vs. an individual's right to privacy. If the information is "newsworthy" -- that is, if people have a right or a need to know about something, then that will prevail over a person's claim to privacy.

When it comes to proving fault in a libel claim, the law also treats private and public individuals somewhat differently. Both private and public individuals must prove a publication is at fault, but private individuals only need to prove negligence on the part of the reporter/publication, while public figures must prove actual malice. 

 

Earlier this year,in a remarkable case stemming from the right to privacy, the British tabloid News of the World actually closed for good after a shocking phone hacking scandal. Click here to learn more about it, and be sure to watch at least the first video, "Scandal shuts down British tabloid".

Finally, read this column about the difference between tabloid journalism and investigative journalism.

Creative Commons photo by Howard Lake

Exploring a current fact + opinion case study

This week we will be exploring editorial writing. If you have been following the news in the last few days, you have undoubtedly heard about the crisis engulfing Penn State University in the wake of a sex scandal involving a former football coach. One Pennsylvania newspaper, The Patriot-News, took the highly unusual step of running a full page editorial on its front page calling for the resignation of Penn State's president. Click here to read about the trend of front page editorials.

The day after that editorial ran, the board of trustees at Penn State held an emergency meeting and decided to immediately fire the school's president and legendary football coach Joe Paterno. Paterno has NOT been charged with any crime but has come under a firestorm of criticism for failing to report his colleague's alleged sexual abuse of young boys to the police. Check out a pair of local opinion columns about Paterno's firing from sports columnists Mitch Albom and Drew Sharp, both of the Detroit Free Press.

Finally, one side note: Actor Ashton Kutcher committed an act of idiocy when he tweeted his support of Joe Paterno before he even knew why Paterno was let go. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, but opinions must be based on fact, not ignorance.

Creative Commons photo by Joe Shlabotnik.

Bias in the news

As we examine the problem of bias in the news, you're probably thinking, "I'm not prejudiced. So I would never be biased in my reporting or writing." But bias isn't the same thing as prejudice. Prejudice is a deliberate negative feeling or attitude. Bias is a tendency or an inclincation to assume a certain viewpoint, and a bias may be favorable or unfavorable and is not always deliberate. Indeed, most reporters are unaware of bias in their reporting until someone points it out to them.

Even if your work is free of bias, you need to be a critical observer of the news media and have a greater understanding of bias in reporting. Because it happens. All the time.

Bias can occur in many ways, particularly through:

•  Selection and omission of specific details
  
•  Placement of a story
•  Choice of sources
•  Word choice and tone
•  Headlines
•  Photos and camera angles
•  Captions
•  Names and titles
•  Statistics

Click here to examine how two articles cover the same news event in much different way.Then click on some of the other menu items and explore this excellent University of Michigan website on news bias.

Steve Jobs and journalism

In writing your feature profiles, you are relying on only two sources -- the person you interview and your own personal observation. But most news and feature stories require several sources. Please read this short blog post by Bobby Hawthorne, a writing instructor from Austin, Texas and author of The Radical Write.

On a completely different note . . . with the recent death of Apple founder Steve Jobs, you undoubtedly heard reports of how innovative he was and what an immense impact he had on personal computing technology. But did you know that he also had a major influence on journalism? Read this brief article about it, then watch what Jobs had to say about journalism in his own words in this video clip.

Finally, if you have time please listen to Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement speech.

Flickr Creative Commons photo by Lightsurgery

Interviewing Tips and Less is More

Although everyone in the class still needs more practice with writing hard news leads and writing stories that follow the basic inverted pyramid structure, it's time to move towards other forms of journalistic writing, beginning with basic feature writing. Features rely more heavily on quotes and interviews, so we need to spend some time in and out of class considering and practicing what makes a good interview.

It's true that the best interviews are like good conversations. That is, in most cases the interview should be a comfortable give-and-take session where you and the person you interview talk with each other, not at each other. Of course, if the interviewee is hostile or defensive, this may not be the case. But the three best things you can do to have a good interview are:

1) Prepare thoroughly by researching the topic and/or the person and list questions.
2) Take good notes and record the interview if possible.
3) Listen very attentively.

Being a good listener is the most important thing you can do. One of the biggest mistakes many inexperienced reporters make is worrying so much about what question to ask next, that they don't realize something important or unexpected that the interviewee has just said.

Here are a couple of short videos I would like you to watch. The first is some good advice about interviewing from network anchor Katie Couric. The second is from National Public Radio's Scott Simon.

There's an old saying in journalism: "Less is more."

Forget about the times you wrote as much as you could about something in order to impress the teacher or give your reader the impression that you really know what you're talking about. In journalism brevity is key. Hard news stories must be concise or you'll confuse and lose the reader. While feature stories allow writers to be more descriptive and more creative, that doesn't mean you should necessarily start writing a lot more. Right now we're focusing on short profiles so that means first do thorough reporting and interviewing, then pick the very best information to write your story. Don't give the reader all of the information. While your words may be sacred to you, you have to be able to cut what's not necessary and edit wordy phrases.

Think of it as fat-free writing.

Click on the links below to see three more examples of 300-word stories by Brady Dennnis, then comment on which you like the best and why.

Looking for a laugh

One minute and $123 dollars

As time goes by

Interviewing: Who runs the show?

Who should determine what should be asked in an interview? The reporter? Or the person being interviewed? Does someone being interviewed have to answer every question he or she is asked?

As we begin to consider the practice and art of interviewing, take a look at a clip of an interview that took place on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight a few months ago. Morgan was questioning Christine O'Donnell, a well known member of the highly conservative Tea Party. Though O'Donnell held public office at one time, she was on his show to promote her new book -- at least that's what she wanted to do. When Morgan's line of questioning wasn't up to her liking, things got a bit tense.

Was Morgan rude and unprofessional? Was he seeking to provoke his guest for publicity? Or was O'Donnell a prima donna for seeking to control the interview to her liking? Shouldn't a prominent politician, particularly one who has a reputation for being eccentric, expect difficult or even heated questions?

Watch the video clip and weigh in with your reactions.

If you're interested, you can learn more background about O'Donnell and the Twitter war with Morgan that followed her walkout in this article. More on the hacking scandal in the days ahead . . .

Note: Photos appear under the legal concept of Fair Use in copyright law. Fair use allows the reproduction of copyrighted material for certain purposes without obtaining permission and without paying a fee or royalty. Purposes permitting the application of fair use generally include review, news reporting, teaching, or scholarly research.

The Most Important Journalistic Equation

It's a simple formula:  Lack of attribution = lack of credibility = lack of readers.

There is nothing difficult about attribution. It's simply saying who or what your source is, whether it's a fact, an opinion or a quote. As we've discussed in class, attribution is the soul of journalism because without it, your article or broadcast is not believable. Reporters need to protect themselves. In the event that the information proves to be false, at least the reporter can truthfully say that her source was wrong, not her. And attribution establishes credibility by showing  readers or listeners where they can go if they challenge anything in the article or if they want to obtain more information from your sources.

Getting the story first is nice. Getting it fast is nice too. But getting it right supercedes everything else. Without journalistic integrity, reporters or publications have nothing to offer readers or listeners. Recently an Irish college student conducted a media experiment that, unfortunately, major news organizations failed. The results were alarming and should make everyone -- especially aspiring journalists -- remember to not only attribute their own facts, but to check and re-check any unattributed information they obtain online. Click here to read an article about the hoax.

Deep Throat: Patriot or Traitor?

All the President's Men is a classic illustration of the watchdog role of journalism and how no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law. More than 30 years have passed since Watergate. Given the technology we have today, as well as the greater emphasis on homeland security, do you think Woodward and Bernstein's job would be easier or more difficult if they were investigating the same series of events today?

One thing's for sure. Deep Throat, their anonymous source for many of the stories, was instrumental in helping them uncover the Watergate scandal. For years Deep Throat's identity remained a mystery until Mark Felt, former associate director of the FBI, admitted in 2005 that he was, in fact, the parking garage informant. Click here to view a brief newscast about Mark Felt's death a few years ago. While some praise Felt for his  courage, others consider him a traitor for leaking classified information to reporters. Click here to see this point of view.

Do you think Deep Throat was a hero? Or was he maybe someone who disliked President Nixon and used Woodward and Bernstein for his own agenda? How do you feel about the value and trustworthiness of anonymous sources?
 
Photo courtesy of The Guardian.

Note: This photo appears under the legal concept of Fair Use in copyright law. Fair use allows the reproduction of copyrighted material for certain purposes without obtaining permission and without paying a fee or royalty. Purposes permitting the application of fair use generally include review, news reporting, teaching, or scholarly research.

The First Amendment: A Blessing and a Curse

The First Amendment is the foundation of an open society. Two of the five protections guaranteed by the First Amendment -- freedom of speech and freedom of the press -- help ensure that we provide citizens with a "marketplace of ideas" free from censorship. Yet the right to free expression often comes into conflict with other rights, especially when it infringes on the safety or morality of others. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example, is not protected by the First Amendment. Neither is child pornography or material that is considered obscene in nature. This is why the First Amendment is not just a static document that was written by our forefathers over 200 years ago. Because society and technology change and evolve, the First Amendment is continually challenged by cases that need to be interpreted by the courts.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state of California, saying that the state's law banning the sale of violent video games to children was a violation of the First Amendment. Click here to watch a news report about the case.

Another interesting case came about this year that is reminiscent of the Tinker case. Read this wire report to see what it was all about. Does the student's t-shirt meet the Tinker standard of "substantial disruption"? Or should he have a right to wear it under the First Amendment?  The First Amendment is often problematic because it leaves questions of exactly what is protected speech open to debate. Yet the many freedoms it guarantees far outweigh its flaws. I welcome your thoughts about one or both of these cases.   .

A Digital Decade

Welcome to a new school year! And welcome, young journalists, to Waldsmith's Dispatch, our journalism class blog. I began this blog in the fall of 2009 and it goes on hiatus when our semester-long class is over. I'm excited to get the blog up and running again because it works as a great tool to accompany and emphasize issues covered in class, as well a place to share your thoughts and comments. Some of the posts will be "greatest hits" of earlier posts; others will be brand new. So here are some questions to ponder.

Are newspapers a dying breed? It would seem so. As we've discussed in class and as chapter 4 in your textbook points out, traditional newspapers are fighting to survive and implementing new technologies to meet the needs of a new generation of readers who are more likely to get their news from an iPod or cell phone. On the other hand, journalism itself isn't dying. Only its mode of delivery is changing and adapting. Click here to read a bit more about the trend.

Meanwhile the trend of citizen journalism is also here to stay. As we saw in the For Neda documentary, ordinary citizens, as well as journalists, were able to use cell phones and social networking sites like Twitter to report news that would have otherwise been suppressed by the Iranian government.

While the digital revolution has enabled us to have incredible opportunities and resources at our fingertips, it has also spawned problematic trends. How, for example, do we sift through it all? How will people know the difference between legitimate news sources and biased or unsupported propaganda? How will people be able to make informed decisions?

NBC anchorman Brian Williams summed it up well:  "It is now possible--even common--to go about your day in America and consume only what you wish to see and hear. There are television networks that already agree with your views, iPods that play only music you already know you like, Internet programs ready to filter out all but the news you want to hear . . . The whole notion of  'media' is now much more democratic, but what will the effect be on democracy?"

One final note: as the media commemorate the 10-year anniversary of 9/11, it's interesting to reflect on how much technology has changed in the past decade and how social media has impacted journalism. Click here to read an interesting article about how coverage of the catastrophic events of that day would likely be different today.

Creative Commons photo: Newspaper stands by Miriam Mollerus

Some final thoughts . . .

Photo courtesy of mnstate.edu 

Plagiarism, fabrication, bias, fallacies. As we have seen, whether it's intentional misconduct or unintentional violations of sound journalistic practices, numerous ethical problems have the potential to exist when writing for print or broadcast news. Yet it's not just words that we have to be careful with, but photographs as well. Thanks to amazing software programs like Photoshop, it's incredibly easy to alter a photograph to make someone or something appear better (or worse). While that's fine for something like a senior picture, it's completely unethical to alter a photograph or video accompanying a news story. You wouldn't change someone's quote. Yet some people don't see anything wrong with changing a photograph. Remember, photojournalism must abide by the same ethical principles of truth and accuracy.

Recently political satirist and TV host Jon Stewart criticized Fox TV's Sean Hannity for playing with the facts, the visual facts that is. Click here to watch the clip from the show. Pay close attention to the video and what Stewart is calling Hannity out for. (By the way, Hannity later apologized for what he called an "inadvertent mistake".)

I hope you've enjoyed our journalism class and this journalism blog this semester. What are some of the most important things you have learned? Waldsmith's Dispatch will be on hiatus until September 2011 when a new crop of aspiring writers joins me for another semester of journalism bootcamp!

Creative Commons photo, "Sunset Road", by Kopfjäger