Secret Press?

Press Secret

It is in our human nature to want to see the disturbing side of society.  For some, it helps us feel better about our own lives, for others it is a way to connect with the darker parts of ourselves.  For others still, they like to analyze the minds of criminals and criminal activity to see what makes bad people do bad things.  Whatever the reasons, humans for the most part enjoy watching and reading about the debauchery of culture.  They would not be able to do so, however, without the media.  Journalists have been given freedoms in order to bring information and news to the masses.  However are there certain times when the freedom prevents justice from being done, or are there just certain people who try to overreach their power? 

       In the 1960’s and 1970’s, newspaper journalism was being threatened by a new genre of reporting.  The television news reports were taking over and becoming wildly popular with the upper middle class.  Newspaper reports had to be edgy, and take readers on an experience never before had.  Paul Branzburg was just such a reporter.  He did his research, and reported on stories that the public needed to see for their benefit.  He uncovered the grizzly stories about what American society was truly like.  The Camelot period in America was ending, and Branzburg was there to report on the hay day of crime and drug use. 

            One such article in 1969 showed society how some criminals make certain drugs, and this lead to other articles showing just how easily drugs were infiltrating America.  Branzburg had investigated many drug users and dealers for months to obtain this information, all the while protecting their anonymity.  When the articles were published, Branzburg was called to testify to a grand jury regarding his findings, in the hopes that it would help the government in figuring out who was behind the drug use in Kentucky where Branzburg was reporting (eNotes, 2012). 

            Branzburg protected his sources, claiming that the first amendment gave the press freedom to print stories as they see fit, and to protect their sources from the public eye.  The Supreme Court ruled that while the press does have some freedoms, the press still has to maintain the law and uphold it.  The Court felt that by keeping a source hidden, the reporters were withholding evidence that could affect a trial.  They also argued that just because a reporter has to divulge their source, it does not stop them from reporting the issues.  However it was not a unanimous decision.

            There are nine members of the Supreme Court.  Five members agreed with the decision that journalists should give up sources when it impeded an investigation by the government.  However four of the justices dissented.  They wrote their own arguments on why it was not proper to force a reporter to give up the anonymity of their sources.  They argued that the courts can proceed with an investigation without naming the source themselves, and if the sources are not protected they would not give any information and therefore the reporters would not be doing their job correctly.  The Supreme Court went in the other direction and took the side of the informant in the Cohen v. Cowels Media Co. case of 1982, where they ruled in favor of the sources right to remain a secret, especially if the reporter promise confidentiality in the beginning (4 Law school, 2006). 

            Branzburg argued during his trial that if his sources were not protected, they would not divulge any information to him.  They would not trust him with their deepest, darkest secrets, and therefore the true reporting would be lost.  He was so set on reporting the news and the correct information, and not loosing his relationship with his sources, that he appealed the Court’s decision, citing many state decisions over the years that had ruled in favor of protecting the source’s identity.  In the appeals process, he ended up winning; with the decision then ruling in Branzburg’s favor that a source should be kept confidential if a promise is made.  The Kentucky court then ruled on what the legal definition of a source of information was, so as to keep this protected (Cornell law, n.d.).

            There are pro’s and con’s to protecting the identity of a source of information.  It should only be done rarely, and when any other exceptions cannot be made.  However offering to protect a source before they divulge any information can help you resist the demand for their identity later in a court, depending on the individual state law.  It will, in most instances, help the source speak more freely about their experiences.  However realize before you promise confidentiality to a source two things.  One, a source can hold you to that promise, and sue you for giving up their identity if you otherwise said you would keep their anonymity.  Two, private sources are untraceable and therefore make your articles harder to vet, and harder for the public to view as credible (Citizen media law project, 2011).     

            Most of the time there are shield laws that protect journalists from having to reveal a source.  Shield laws are legislature that protect a journalist from having to testify about their own reporting, and thus about their sources.  However it is not a federal law, shield laws are individual to their own states.  There are 13 states that currently do not have any shield laws protecting the journalists there, and the rest either have absolute laws or laws with some exceptions (RCFP, 2011).  If you are in a state where shield laws are absolute, it protects a journalist from having to testify about their own reporting, their sources, and give up any information pertaining to the like. 

            The states with exceptions to the rule have the exceptions when there is an ongoing investigation, and the reporters should happen to be involved.  In some states, the law is not written for newer reporting, and only protects news media outlets such as newspapers and television, not blogs and online reporters.  In some states if the news report violates an individuals 6^th amendment rights to a fair trial, the report and reporter are not protected by the shield laws.  It really does vary from state to state (Facchetti, 2012).  The federal government provides certain qualified privilege for reporter/source confidentiality.  However it is on a case-by-case basis.       

        There is no set standard for what a journalist will have to do to get a story.  Some live in jail cells or psychiatric hospitals for months or years to report on the conditions of the facilities.  Some will take drugs to report on the first hand use of their effects of the mind, and body (PBS, 2000).  Some reporters will go so far as to live with criminals and watch them commit crimes, so that they can report from a first hand view point what it is like to watch it happen. 

            All of this comes down to what individuals believe about their freedoms, and about the freedom they have to get information on their towns and country.  Do you believe that the press and the media take things too far, and take matters into their own hands, doing anything to obtain information for a story that could compromise the freedoms and fair trial of individuals?  Or do you believe that the press has the freedom to protect their sources and their stories, in order to report the news to society in a timely, trustworthy manner? 

References

4 Law school. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.4lawschool.com/contracts/cohen.shtml

Citizen media law project. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/promising-confidentiality-your-sources

Cornell law. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0665_ZO.html

eNotes. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.enotes.com/branzburg-v-hayes-reference/branzburg-v-hayes

Facchetti, A. (2012). Defamation law blog. Retrieved from http://www.defamationlawblog.com/2009/07/articles/defamation-basics/what-is-the-california-shield-law/

PBS. (2000). Retrieved from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAWbly.htm

RCFP. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/guides/reporters-privilege/shield-laws

Freedom of speech?

Sedition is Sadistic

This country is known as the greatest in the world for one lingering reason.  The inhabitants of this country are given the freedoms to live their lives in peace, without fear that they will be watched over by an all powerful government or monarchy.  America was founded based upon those simple freedoms, getting away from government control in England.  The founding fathers wrote a constitution with only 4,543 words, the constitution was meant to give the same freedoms to everyone and lesson the hold on the government over the citizens of the nation.  There have been many amendments enacted over the years that followed to enhance the freedom of Americans.  So one can ask, is it okay for the government to make laws that limit our freedom, and take away what America stands for?

In any society, there will be rules set into place to keep an order to things, and prevent chaos from ensuing.  When this country was founded, it was decided that too many laws were pointless.  Laws only prevented good people from doing bad things.  Bad people were going to do bad things, no matter what law was enacted.  So less law and more enforcement of good behavior was seen as the way to rule society.  However when our second president was elected into office, he was afraid that too much freedom would allow certain individuals to overthrow the government.  In 1798, John Adams passed an act called Sedition, which prevented anyone from speaking in a harmful way against the government (New world encyclopedia, n.d.).

This act would prevent anyone from making threats against the President, threats against the government, or to say or publicize words that may cause harm to the government in any way.  However the first amendment to the constitution was written and included in the Bill of Rights in 1789, in clearly stated that the government could make no laws that prevented the citizens’ freedom of speech.  The sedition act was in clear violation of this amendment, and was repealed under the very next president, Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson claimed that this act was a violation of American citizens freedoms and a violation of what America stood for (Constitutional rights foundation, 2012).

Before Jefferson could repeal this act, however, there were cases of it being used to imprison certain parties who had spoken out against the government.  Thomas Cooper was a lawyer who happened to dislike President Adams.  He wrote an article criticizing the President, and he was not looked upon too favorably for this.  In 1800, the United States vs. Thomas Cooper went to trial and found Cooper guilty of violating the sedition act (National archives, n.d.).  However when Thomas Jefferson repealed the sedition act, he pardoned those who had been convicted of violating it, as he deemed the act unconstitutional (New world encyclopedia, n.d.)

Even though this act was repealed, it seems to come to light throughout the years still.  When there is an unpopular president, and someone makes an off color remark that may be taken the wrong way or be taken to mean the threatening of that President or of the government itself, this act is brought up again in various fashions.  Take for example the case of Benjamin Gitlow.  He was trying to ratify the government with what he published as a Left Wing Manifesto in a small newspaper (Case briefs, 2012).  This manifesto was designed to push ideas of socialist reform within the United States.  This was during a time of the Great Depression, when Calvin Coolidge was trying to reduce government control and government spending.  The socialist movement would provide more government services to those in need, or so Gitlow felt.  It is very similar to how the country is divided now, over government spending and larger government social services. 

Gitlow’s manifesto was, however, considered radical and also thought that if published widely would incited violence and a takeover of the government, ultimately leading to a socialist regime as seen in the likes of Russia and other less free countries.  The Supreme Court ruled that he was an anarchist, who was in direct violation of the government, and was trying to cause harm to the government and its people.  The state was in effect ruling against this one man’s freedom, to protect the freedom of the many.  Is this fair, or legal?

In one way or another, this law of sedition has been brought up since its inception.  As stated previously, it is usually when there is an unpopular president, who is trying to stifle those who disagree with them.  The president has technology and intelligence agencies to protect them and they are working tirelessly around the clock.  That is why the press and media can say hateful things against the President and the country, and get away with it, without fear of being prosecuted for treason or anarchy.  However one false move that is detected by the wrong agency at the wrong time, will land you a meeting with the law. 

Recently, rocker Ted Nugent made comments disagreeing with our current president.  He was visited by the Secret Service, and interviewed to ensure that his comments were not meant to threaten the President himself, nor the safety of the country (The Christian science monitor, 2012).  However with comments made on a daily basis about the president by the news media, and about the previous president when he was in office, one has to question if this was just a political ploy, or if it truly was an investigation in the interest of national security.  Has the act of sedition always been this way?  It seems when looking back throughout history that this has been the case.  It is not purely one-sided either, when it comes to politics.  Both political parties have been in the limelight of cases similar to this one. 

Did the original founding fathers of this country feel that the government could not be questioned at all?  It is true that they questioned the government from which they came, otherwise there would be no United States of America.  It is also true that they did not account for many of the gross injustices that have happened in the 20^th and 21^st centuries.  Slanderous speech, hateful racism and sexism, raucous acts filmed, all of these things that have been made public because of the television and Internet.  However when one act is brought about that limits freedoms in the hopes of protecting certain citizens, who is to say when enough is enough?  Who is to say when those limitations will be taken too far, and when our freedoms will cease to exist?

Look at what freedoms we have been given in this country thanks to the constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Each law that is passed into effect can either enhance our freedom, or take it away.  However changing the constitution to suit the needs of the President, and/or a political party, drastically changes the needs and the values of this country.  Is the act of sedition really a protection against government uprising?  Or is it a political ploy that fundamentally takes away our freedom of speech?  You decide. 

 

References

Case briefs. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/first-amendment-freedom-of-expression/gitlow-v-new-york/

Constitutional rights foundation. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-alien-and-sedition-acts.html

National archives. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/sedition-case/

New world encyclopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

The Christian science monitor. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0420/Ted-Nugent-Motor-City-Madman-had-solid-meeting-with-Secret-Service

Treyvon Martin, in my words.

While I believe in the constitution and the amendments thereof, which includes not letting our government  make any laws that abridge our freedom of speech, I have to speak out in regards to a hot button issue of late.  Treyvon Martin was a young man who of course did not deserve to die.  No young man does deserve to die.  However, no man deserves to be convicted by the media, and before a jury trial has taken place none the less.  No one knows what happened the day Treyvon Martin was shot, except Treyvon, and George Zimmerman, the man with the gun.  The media has painted a very clear picture of an evil man, out for the blood of a young, black boy, simply because of his race.  However the more the facts are unfolded, the more this seems to be unlikely.

Mr. Zimmerman is a minority himself, being of hispanic decent.  The 911 call that he made to report someone threatening in his neighborhood show that he was not sure of the boys race, only that he was answering the question the 911 operator was asking when asked to describe the boy.  We do not know if he was attacked, and defending himself, or if he shot without provocation.  However we do know that Mr. Zimmerman is an American, and therefore he has the right to a jury trial before we convict him of anything.  Shame on the media for doing what they do best, sensationalizing a story to make a few bucks, while the fate of a man is already doomed from the start.  Now not only do Treyvon's parents have to live with the grief of what happened to their boy, but George Zimmermen's family has to live with the grief of what is happening to him as well.

I can only hope in this instance that, even with all of the media attention, the prosecution and defense can find an unbiased jury to try this man, to give him a fair trial, and to see that justice be done no matter what that justice is.  I want all of the facts to be heard on both sides, so that whatever happened that day may come to light for the sake of both of these young men's families.  And above all, if Mr. Zimmerman is found innocent, I hope the media will let him live in peace.  But this is, of course, too much to ask.  That would not make for a good story!

How bias came to be:

Picture yourself on a chilly winter evening curled up in your favorite chair.  You are reading an amazing book on an eReader, but the battery is low and in the back of your mind you know you will need to plug it in soon.  The IPOD doc is playing your favorite music in the background, and the television has a brilliant fire roaring to set the mood lighting.  The ambiance is incredible, and in your mind there is no better way to spend a relaxing evening at home, until the power goes out from the raging storm outside.  It is frustrating, to say the least.  You must get flashlights, candles, and any other means of light, as well as blankets and make sure that your home is warm.  Not to mention, you try to remember what entertainment actually was like before electricity existed.  In today’s society, media comes through so many avenues, and it coexists between the different media outlets.  But before electricity, media outlets were few and far between.

Media is actually a plural version of the word medium, or a way to convey some form of communication (Dictionary, 2012).  Media can date back through history, when cave men wrote on stone to convey messages to others.  However the original mass media was a bit more recent.  This term did not originate until the printing press came into being, and mass amounts of people were able to receive written words at the same time.  Most people associate this first instance of mass media happening when Johannes Guttenberg was the first person to print a book on a printing press in 1455 (Gutenberg Bible, 2008).  The Guttenberg Bible was printed in about 200 copies, which was a massive amount for its time. 

Printing presses became more popular over the years, and other than Bibles newspapers were a way or mass amounts of people to hear the news from their town, or even from around the country.  This was an incredible invention.  However throughout the 1700 and 1800’s when electricity was being invented and put into more machines, the printing press became automated and more newspapers and Bibles were able to be printed than ever before (Bellis, 2012).  Electricity also lead to more inventions, such as the radio, the television and the computer, which lead to communication on a massive scale (Museum T.V., 2012).  Once these other inventions came into play, the news and entertainment industries could expand from locally letting people know about what was going on in small towns, to nationally and world wide letting people in on current knowledge.  In the early 1900’s, people still listened to news individually through newspapers, or through television, or even radio.  Most people were not able to afford all three, especially coming out of hard economic times and a several large wars.  However in the late 1900’s this would change with one very clever, and essential invention.

The Internet was developed over quite a few years in the 1900’s, and was originally used to get intelligence information for the government.  However when it was brought to the limelight in the late 1900’s and given to regular citizens as the World Wide Web, this gave computers an edge in the mass media market (Media group, n.d.).  Television was still number one as far as news and entertainment during the first few years of its onset, but the Internet grew quickly and became the main source for a media outlet. 

In the 21^st century, with still more inventions to come, these different media outlets will converge, and become one with each other in a way that no one could have ever predicted.  This super media seems to be everywhere all the time and does not allow any privacy or unbiased opinion any longer when it comes to reporting stories.  Looking into how these media outlets came together and the craze to provide information to this super media can show us exactly why the media reports the way it does today.

In the 21^st century with the invention of social media, such as Facebook and Myspace, and with the invention of eReaders so that books and newspapers are now on one piece of equipment instead of being manually held, things became more convenient for the everyday consumer.  Cellular telephones and tablets can be used to stream television news, movies, music, phone calls, books, newspaper, immediate coverage of current events, games, and much more.  With one device, you can have the world at your fingertips, literally.  You can know what is happening on the other side of the world with a family member through social networking, or on the other side of the world in news with a newspaper on your eReader.  These inventions make the printing press and television seem antiquated and devices that will be only for the history books, yet they were not used that long ago, and it makes one forget that the newer technologies such as cellular phones and computers are relatively new (Poor Vago’s almanac, 2012). 

Now that news and entertainment can be found all in one place, it does not necessarily mean that there are less media outlets than before.  On the contrary, there are more news programs, web sites, blogs, viral videos, eBooks and more to keep more and more citizens abreast of current news every day, hour, minute and second that something happens, than ever before.  Because there is more competition for viewers, each media outlet must bring something new and different to the scene.  They must be the fastest to bring news or current event coverage to the forefront, even if the stories are not vetted properly.  Or they must sensationalize a story by putting their own twist on the issues.  Not to mention with the World Wide Web, anyone can upload a story or a video and call himself or herself a journalist or a reporter. 

The pendulum of media bias has swung around with the way the media has progressed as well.  In the 1950’s through the 1970’s, when the media was conservative and small, it was run by conservative journalists and television reporters who reported news and fact.  However during the anti-war movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s television and newspaper coverage of anti-war protesters, hippies and the peace and love movement were generally only negative.  They only showed drug overdoses and free sex, instead of the good things that hippies actually stood for.  Today, when media is more liberal and media has more outlets than ever before, it is run by a more liberal minded group.  Most media outlets today with only a minor few exceptions, put a negative spin on government control, conservatism, and fitting in (Special report, n.d.).  Being free and doing things your own way is what media outlets are fighting for and what they stand for on a daily basis.

In today’s society, the media has so much influence over how we see the world.  This era of instant news and the World Wide Web makes the old ways of finding out information obsolete.  High definition makes it so that everyone on Television or the Internet is scrutinized and dissected so closely that they have to be perfect.  If a crime is committed, a trial by ones peers is virtual impossible any longer, because the media makes up their mind if a person is guilty or innocent before a trail is even held.  Even if there is no crime committed, the media can make up their mind that someone has done something wrong, and ruin their reputation.  All this happens if someone is not popular by mainstream media standards.  This is not what the media was intended to do, and it is not good for society as a whole.  However this is how the media has to be run to compete for viewers, because there is so much competition out there.

We have inundated ourselves with media, so much so that we cannot go one day without being connected to the outside world.  Most of us in this day and age would not know how to go camping without an electrical device such as a cellular phone or a laptop computer.  Yes these media devices have brought us convenience in quite a few ways, but what happens when the electricity goes out?  Will we know what to do?  We all need to take a moment to remember when our media comes from and remember what life was like before all of this technology and electricity came into our lives.  Pick up a book.  Turn off the television and the cellular phone.  Take a walk.  If we do this once in a while, it will make us appreciate mass media that much more.          

         

       References

Dictionary. (2012). Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/media?s=t

Gutenberg Bible. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg-bible.com/

Media group. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://247mediagroup.com/history-of-mass-media-and-what-it’s-become.html

Poor Vago's almanack. (2012). Retrieved from http://fuknus.chrisdamitio.com/the-damitio/assignments/a-brief-history-of-the-mass-media/

Museum T.V.. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=masscommunic

Bellis, M. (2012). Inventors. Retrieved from http://inventors.about.com/od/timelines/a/electricity_timeline.htm

Special report. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf