Right to Privacy vs. the Public's Right to Know

One of the most controversial ethical dilemmas that journalists can face is the question of the right to privacy versus the public's right to know. While this is a topic that we will examine in more depth later in the semester when we explore media law, CNN's recent reporting following the aftermath of the tragedy in Libya has brought that question into the spotlight.

In brief, CNN obtained a personal diary belonging to the late Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed earlier this month when the U.S. embassy in Libya was attacked. CNN was severely criticized by the State Department for invading the ambassador's privacy when it reported some of things contained in the journal. 

But CNN has defended its action, claiming that it only reported information of news value that the U.S. government doesn't like -- not any personal information about Stevens himself.

Read the criticism and watch the CNN video to become familiar with the story. What are your thoughts?

Creative Commons photo by mohamedn

Putting quotes in context

As the presidential race heats up, we will occasionally take a look at various things the candidates say and how they are covered in the media. Our first example is taken from a speech President Obama gave this past summer.  Listen to the specific part of the speech that caused such an uproar before reading any further.

After listening, you might wonder, "So? What is the big deal?" But Republicans and the media were quick to pounce on the President's words "You didn't build that." For example, click here to read how Fox News seized on that quote and put a negative "spin" on it. Make sure you watch the video embedded in the article also.

But was the President really suggesting that he doesn't believe in the American Dream of working hard to achieve individual success? This is a classic example of how quotes are often taken out of context. News organizations don't have the time or space to present long quotes to readers or viewers. So they look for the most interesting or sometimes the most controversial "sound bytes". But sometimes, particularly when the people being quoted are discussing complex subjects, picking a short "snippet" of a quote means people aren't getting the full meaning of the speaker's words.

Read this last article to see the full context of the "You didn't build that" line.



Creative Commons photo by DonkeyHotey

More Examples of the First Amendment in Action: For Better or Worse

Despite continued protests in the Mideast and other parts of the world against an anti-Islam video, and despite the violence it provoked that led to the deaths of several Americans, Google has announced that it has no plans to remove the video from youtube. While the White House itself asked Google to consider taking the video down from the Internet, Google is not backing down, though it will block it in specific countries such as Egypt and Libya where the most violent demonstrations have occurred.

Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton last week had strong words about the video itself, but listen carefully to what she had to say about the First Amendment. What is your reaction to her explanation to other countries?

The First Amendment is both a blessing and a curse. It ensures people's right to free speech, even when that speech is distasteful or even insulting to other people. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court made a highly controversial decision when it ruled in favor of a church that preaches against gays at military funerals. Read this article for some background on the case, then listen to this CNN interview for a better explanation. Do you think the Supreme Court made the correct ruling?

Creative Commons photo:  IIP State/Meg Riggs

Journalism: Evolving & Adapting

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. 

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 oa 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. 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?"

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. 

For example, click here to read a current court case that involves the First Amendment, then read another version of the story. What is your opinion? Offer a brief comment about the case or anything else mentioned in this post.