DOCSLIB.ORG

©[2012] Sandra Mardenfeld ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
©[2012] Sandra Mardenfeld ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ©[2012] Sandra Mardenfeld ALL RIGHTS RESERVED REPORTERS IN PRACTICE: THE ROLE OF PRIVILEGE IN CONTEMPORARY JOURNALISM by SANDRA MARDENFELD A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Communication, Information and Library Science written under the direction of Dr. Susan Keith and approved by ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey [October, 2012] ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Reporters in Practice: The Role of Privilege in Contemporary Journalism By SANDRA MARDENFELD Dissertation Director: Dr. Susan Keith Journalists often take the position that confidential sources should remain anonymous. One tool journalists invoke when pressure is exerted by the government to reveal a source’s identity is reporters’ privilege, basing this right on the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and the press. Yet the interpretation of exactly what this Amendment promises is much debated. Studies on reporter’s privilege and shield laws usually focus on three arenas: historical developments (Allen, 1992), analysis of legislation and court cases (Fargo, 2006-c; Fargo, 2002; Schmid, 2001) and whether the First Amendment promises privilege at all (Marcus, 1983). Little research, however, looks at reporter’s privilege and shield laws through the eyes of practitioners and whether they think the threat of source exposure corrupts the newsperson’s ability to inform the public, thus hurting free speech. Similarly, there is little research on how the mainstream news media frame reporter’s privilege and shield laws and what the public thinks of them. The first purpose of this dissertation is to understand journalists’ perceptions of the importance of the reporter/anonymous source relationship and whether they think the threat of revealing sources alters the newsgathering process by interviewing ii journalists who went to jail rather than expose their sources. The second goal is to understand how reporter’s privilege and shield laws are portrayed to the public by looking at the frames four major metro newspapers, in different geographical regions, used in their editorial pages when discussing reporter’s privilege and shield laws over the span of 38 years, starting in 1972, the year of the pivotal Supreme Court decision in Branzburg v. Hayes1. The findings may provide insight into how the media explain such issues to the public and how the media establishment can better construct their narratives to educate its audience on such concerns. The last purpose is to suggest how the public may understand the issues of shield laws and reporter’s privilege through the media they consume. The findings from focus groups conducted with three demographic groups—students, baby boomers, and seniors—provide insight into how the public may perceive and misinterpret such issues, and how media institutions can better educate the public on shield laws and reporter’s privilege. 1 The idea of a federal shield law has been a much-talked about media topic since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), a pivotal case in how the courts look at reporter’s privilege where a 5- 4 ruling deemed that journalists do not have a First Amendment right to refuse testimony before a grand jury. iii Dedication and Acknowledgements Dedicated to Ruben Quintero and my children, Ariane, Estela, Kira and Carter Acknowledgements Special thanks to my dissertation adviser, Dr. Susan Keith, and my committee members: Dr. Barbara Fowles, Dr. Montague Kern, and Dr. John Pavlik. Thanks to Erin Christie and Dr. Elizabeth Wollman for their unflagging support. iv Table of Contents I. Introduction…………………………………………………………….....1 II. The Background of Privilege a. Tracing the History of Privilege from First Amendment Theory to the Marketplace of Ideas to the Evolution of the News Media’s Watchdog Role……………………………………………………………….…..14 b. Literature Review: Academics on Privilege……………………….....43 III. Research…………………………………………………………………..52 a. Interview Study: Jailed! Journalists Incarcerated for Protecting Sources Speak Out on the Importance of Reporters’ Privilege……..................54 b. Framing Analysis: What Newspapers Tell Their Readers About Shield Law and Reporter’s Privilege: A Framing Analysis of Editorial Pages from 1972 to 2010………………………………………………..…...80 c. Focus Group Study: Editorials, Reporter’s Privilege, and Public Perception—A Qualitative Look at Audiences’ Opinions and Attitudes about Shield Laws ………………………………….……………….139 IV. Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research……………………..…...170 V. Reference………………………………………………………………...187 VI. Appendices……………………………………………………………….245 v 1 Introduction “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” —The First Amendment of the Constitution Throughout history, journalists and the governments they cover often have engaged in contentious relationships—although certain administrations seem to have hindered the media more than others. One point of conflict comes when the government insists that journalists reveal their sources in court cases. For the news media, maintaining promises to confidential sources, a term used by reporters to describe unidentified individuals from whom they get information for stories, is paramount since they believe violating such trust not only breaks basic tenets of journalism, but could potentially prevent sources from coming forward in the future. When secrecy and obfuscation hinder fact-finding, some journalists contend the only way to uncover certain information is through such confidential sources. As Elrod (2003) frames it, “The difficulty is that ordinary citizens are limited to the information that the media makes available” (pp. 122). Without access to whistleblowers (insiders who give information about their institution, often to the news media), a reporter’s ability is hampered, sometimes to the extent that the truth cannot surface. Because of this belief in the value of confidential sources, some journalists will go to great lengths to protect them— including serving jail time in lieu of exposing their sources. 2 Various governmental administrations have impinged on this conviction of the news media. For example, Richard Nixon employed several methods of controlling information disseminated by news organizations, including hiring “plumbers,” people who tried to plug leaks within the White House and Congress (Do journalists need a better shield?, 2004), and subpoenaing dozens of journalists in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Schmid, 2001). In fact, the administration even attempted to discover the identity of “Deep Throat,” the source journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein used in their series of Washington Post articles on Watergate (“Do Journalists Need a Better Shield?,” 2004). At one point, Woodward and Bernstein gave all their notes to then-publisher Katharine Graham in a strategy they called the “grandmother defense” since she was in her 60s. As Bernstein said in a Frontline TV special, “As [Ben] Bradlee2 said, ‘Wouldn’t that be something? Every photographer in town would be down at the courthouse to look at our girl going off to the slam.’ And Mrs. Graham was ready to go to jail because she understood the principle” (“Secrets, Sources & Spin,” 2007). The tactic wasn’t needed, however, because U.S. District Judge Charles Ritchey dismissed the subpoenas (“Do Journalists Need a Better Shield?,” 2004). The administration of George W. Bush often battled with the press about the access to information—and the position of whistleblowers—as intently as in the Nixon era (Shaw, 2005). From 2001-2008, the U.S. government actively pursued journalists and their confidential sources, threatening to impose hefty punishments on individuals who released information deemed classified or imperative to national security. In 2006, The Washington Post revealed that in attempting to limit classified information leaks, the Bush administration had targeted journalists and their government-based sources, 2 Then executive editor 3 intimidating them by saying that publication of information deemed to harm national security could result in jail time, with journalists being prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act (Eggen, 2006). Although that never occurred, several administration officials insinuated that when The Washington Post and The New York Times published stories on secret prisons in Eastern Europe3 and undercover surveillance of Americans4, that legal ramifications could occur. Such specific threats are troubling. As Stone (2006) said, “They must…be taken seriously. Not because newspapers are really in danger of being prosecuted, but because such intimidation is the latest step in this administration’s relentless campaign to control the press and keep the American people in the dark.” This type of pressuring also takes the forms of subpoenas —something that is increasing for journalists. According to a 2001 study by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), 823 subpoenas were served on 319 news organizations surveyed in 2001. The RCFP estimated that applying that data to the about 2,300 news media institutions nationwide would equal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Itunes About Journalism to Propose Four Use—Will Be Very Different
    Nieman Reports THE NIEMAN FOUNDATION FOR JOURNALISM AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY VOL. 62 NO. 4 WINTER 2008 4 The Search for True North: New Directions in a New Territory Spiking the Newspaper to Follow the Digital Road 5 If Murder Is Metaphor | By Steven A. Smith 7 Where the Monitor Is Going, Others Will Follow | By Tom Regan 9 To Prepare for the Future, Skip the Present | By Edward Roussel 11 Journalism as a Conversation | By Katie King 13 Digital Natives: Following Their Lead on a Path to a New Journalism | By Ronald A. Yaros 16 Serendipity, Echo Chambers, and the Front Page | By Ethan Zuckerman Grabbing Readers’ Attention—Youthful Perspectives 18 Net Geners Relate to News in New Ways | By Don Tapscott 20 Passion Replaces the Dullness of an Overused Journalistic Formula | By Robert Niles 21 Accepting the Challenge: Using the Web to Help Newspapers Survive | By Luke Morris 23 Journalism and Citizenship: Making the Connection | By David T.Z. Mindich 26 Distracted: The New News World and the Fate of Attention | By Maggie Jackson 28 Tracking Behavior Changes on the Web | By David Nicholas 30 What Young People Don’t Like About the Web—And News On It | By Vivian Vahlberg 32 Adding Young Voices to the Mix of Newsroom Advisors | By Steven A. Smith 35 Using E-Readers to Explore Some New Media Myths | By Roger Fidler Blogs, Wikis, Social Media—And Journalism 37 Mapping the Blogosphere: Offering a Guide to Journalism’s Future | By John Kelly 40 The End of Journalism as Usual | By Mark Briggs 42 The Wikification of Knowledge | By Kenneth S.
    [Show full text]
  • Reporter Privilege: a Con Job Or an Essential Element of Democracy Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility Public Scholar Presentation November 14, 2007
    Reporter Privilege: A Con Job or an Essential Element of Democracy Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility Public Scholar Presentation November 14, 2007 Two widely divergent cases in recent months have given the public some idea as to what exactly reporter privilege is and whether it may or may not be important in guaranteeing the free flow of information in society. Whether it’s important or not depends on point of view, and, sometimes, one’s political perspective. The case of San Francisco Giants baseball star Barry Bonds and the ongoing issues with steroid use fueled one case in which two San Francisco Chronicle reporters were held in contempt and sentenced to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal the source of leaked grand jury testimony. According to the testimony, Bonds was among several star athletes who admitted using steroids in the past, although he claimed he did not know at the time the substance he was taking contained steroids. In the other, New York Times reporter Judith Miller served 85 days in jail over her refusal to disclose the source of information that identified a CIA employee, Valerie Plame. The case was complicated with political overtones dealing with the Bush Administration’s claims in early 2003 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. A number of other reporter privilege cases were ongoing during the same time period as these two, but the newsworthiness and the subject matter elevated these two cases in terms of extensive news coverage.1 Particularly in the case of Miller, a high-profile reporter for what arguably is the most important news organization in the world, being jailed created a continuing story that was closely followed by journalists and the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Gli Ombudsman Dei Giornali Come Strumento Di Gestione Della Qualità Giornalistica
    Gli ombudsman dei giornali come strumento di gestione della qualità giornalistica Tesi di Cristina Elia Direttore di tesi Prof. Stephan Russ-Mohl Presentata alla Facoltà di Scienze della comunicazione Università della Svizzera italiana per il titolo di Dottore in Scienze della comunicazione Maggio 2007 Giuria Direttore di tesi: Prof. Stephan Russ-Mohl, Università della Svizzera italiana Revisore interno: Prof. Bertil Cottier, Università della Svizzera italiana Revisore esterno: Prof. Gianpietro Mazzoleni, Università degli Studi di Milano Questa ricerca è stata svolta presso la Facoltà di scienze della comunicazione dell’Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano (Svizzera). ©2007, Cristina Elia Abstract Gli ombudsman della stampa sono particolarmente visibili nei paesi anglosassoni e in Svezia, ma sono presenti anche in altri paesi europei e in America latina. Sono state fatte numerose ricerche sulle origini, il ruolo e l’efficacia dei mediatori anglosassoni. Degli ombudsman attivi nel resto del mondo, invece, si sapeva poco. In occasione del suo quarantesimo compleanno – era il 1967 quando a Louisville, Kentucky, il primo ombudsman della stampa entrò in servizio – questa ricerca colma tale mancanza. Lo studio, prevalentemente descrittivo, analizza lo stadio di sviluppo di questa figura a livello internazionale, individua alcune esigenze cruciali per il suo futuro e formula raccomandazioni per migliorarne l’efficacia. L’analisi empirica – realizzata tramite questionario – evidenzia analogie e differenze in diverse culture giornalistiche. L’analisi dei dati è caratterizzata da un approccio comparativo che si concretizza nel raffronto fra tre grandi gruppi di analisi – «sfera europea», «sfera latina» e «sfera anglosassone» – e nella comparazione con ricerche precedenti. L’analisi empirica è completata da una breve analisi delle rubriche, che offre una panoramica sui temi trattati e le modalità di presentazione.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Brian Karem
    STATEMENT OF BRIAN KAREM I write to provide you with background about myself and to tell you my side of the story regarding what happened at the Social Media Summit on July 11, 2019. I have been a political reporter for almost 40 years. I have also covered crime and wars, and I have run community newspapers. I’ve been jailed, shot at, beaten, and threatened. I am currently Playboy’s senior White House correspondent and a political analyst for CNN. I am president of the Maryland, Delaware, and District of Columbia Press Association. In 1990, I was jailed for contempt of court after refusing to disclose the name of confidential sources who helped me arrange a telephone interview with a jailed murder suspect, after which I was awarded the National Press Club’s Freedom of the Press award. I went on to work as executive editor of The Sentinel Newspapers in Maryland and as producer and television correspondent for America’s Most Wanted. I have also authored seven books. I have covered six White Houses. While I have held my current hard pass since last year, in the past I also held hard passes. My experience in the White House is important because I can tell you, point blank, that the behavior of the press corps today is tame by comparison. The first time I walked into the White House I was 25. It was 1986 and Ronald Reagan was president. The first person I met was Helen Thomas, who covered the White House under ten Presidents, and who, as it turns out, knew my great grandfather from Lebanon.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BRIAN J. KAREM, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 19-2514 : v. : Re Document No.: 2 : DONALD J. TRUMP and : STEPHANIE A. GRISHAM, : : Defendants. : MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I. INTRODUCTION For decades, and across many presidential administrations, the White House has made long-term press passes available to any Washington-based journalist who regularly covers the President and can clear a Secret Service background check. In light of that decision to make White House press facilities widely accessible, the D.C. Circuit has held that reporters have a First Amendment liberty interest in possessing a long-term so-called “hard pass”—an interest that, under the Fifth Amendment, may not be deprived without due process. See Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1977). This case involves an alleged violation of that due process right. Plaintiff Brian Karem, a White House correspondent for Playboy magazine, claims that White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham unlawfully suspended his hard pass as a punishment following his involvement in a brief verbal altercation in the Rose Garden that was captured on video and shared widely on the internet. As the Court will explain below, Karem has, at this early stage of the proceedings, shown that he is likely to succeed on this due process claim, because the present record indicates that Grisham failed to provide fair notice of the fact that a hard pass could be suspended under these circumstances. Meanwhile, Karem has shown that even the temporary suspension of his pass inflicts irreparable harm on his First Amendment rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post- Newspaper America
    SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah Utah Law Digital Commons Utah Law Faculty Scholarship Utah Law Scholarship 2011 Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post- Newspaper America RonNell Anderson Jones Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 68 | Issue 2 Article 3 3-1-2011 Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post- Newspaper America RonNell Anderson Jones Recommended Citation RonNell Anderson Jones, Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post-Newspaper America, 68 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 557 (2011), http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol68/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Litigation, Legislation, and Democracy in a Post-Newspaper America RonNell Andersen Jones* Table of Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................. 558 II. Dying Newspapers and the Loss of Legal Instigation and Enforcement .......................................................................... 562 A. The Decline of the American Newspaper ............................. 562 B. The Unrecognized Threat to Democracy .............................. 570 1. Important Constitutional Developments ........................
    [Show full text]
  • The Bush Revolution: the Remaking of America's Foreign Policy
    The Bush Revolution: The Remaking of America’s Foreign Policy Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay The Brookings Institution April 2003 George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency on the promise of a “humble” foreign policy that would avoid his predecessor’s mistake in “overcommitting our military around the world.”1 During his first seven months as president he focused his attention primarily on domestic affairs. That all changed over the succeeding twenty months. The United States waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops went to Georgia, the Philippines, and Yemen to help those governments defeat terrorist groups operating on their soil. Rather than cheering American humility, people and governments around the world denounced American arrogance. Critics complained that the motto of the United States had become oderint dum metuant—Let them hate as long as they fear. September 11 explains why foreign policy became the consuming passion of Bush’s presidency. Once commercial jetliners plowed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is unimaginable that foreign policy wouldn’t have become the overriding priority of any American president. Still, the terrorist attacks by themselves don’t explain why Bush chose to respond as he did. Few Americans and even fewer foreigners thought in the fall of 2001 that attacks organized by Islamic extremists seeking to restore the caliphate would culminate in a war to overthrow the secular tyrant Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Yet the path from the smoking ruins in New York City and Northern Virginia to the battle of Baghdad was not the case of a White House cynically manipulating a historic catastrophe to carry out a pre-planned agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Karem Amicus Brief DRAFT
    Case 1:19-cv-02514-KBJ Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/19 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BRIAN KAREM, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States and in his individual capacity; and STEPHANIE GRISHAM, in her official capacity as White House Press Secretary and in her individual Case No. 19-cv-2514-KBJ capacity, Defendants. BRIEF OF THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 1:19-cv-02514-KBJ Document 14-1 Filed 08/22/19 Page 2 of 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3 I. The White House must provide meaningful due process before denying, suspending, or revoking a journalist’s security credentials. ......................................................................... 3 II. The Sherrill requirement
    [Show full text]
  • Who Watches the Watchmen? the Conflict Between National Security and Freedom of the Press
    WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN WATCHES WHO WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN WATCHES WHO I see powerful echoes of what I personally experienced as Director of NSA and CIA. I only wish I had access to this fully developed intellectual framework and the courses of action it suggests while still in government. —General Michael V. Hayden (retired) Former Director of the CIA Director of the NSA e problem of secrecy is double edged and places key institutions and values of our democracy into collision. On the one hand, our country operates under a broad consensus that secrecy is antithetical to democratic rule and can encourage a variety of political deformations. But the obvious pitfalls are not the end of the story. A long list of abuses notwithstanding, secrecy, like openness, remains an essential prerequisite of self-governance. Ross’s study is a welcome and timely addition to the small body of literature examining this important subject. —Gabriel Schoenfeld Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Author of Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law (W.W. Norton, May 2010). ? ? The topic of unauthorized disclosures continues to receive significant attention at the highest levels of government. In his book, Mr. Ross does an excellent job identifying the categories of harm to the intelligence community associated NI PRESS ROSS GARY with these disclosures. A detailed framework for addressing the issue is also proposed. This book is a must read for those concerned about the implications of unauthorized disclosures to U.S. national security. —William A. Parquette Foreign Denial and Deception Committee National Intelligence Council Gary Ross has pulled together in this splendid book all the raw material needed to spark a fresh discussion between the government and the media on how to function under our unique system of government in this ever-evolving information-rich environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Here Comes Everybody by Clay Shirky
    HERE COMES EVERYBODY THE POWER OF ORGANIZING WITHOUT ORGANIZATIONS CLAY SHIRKY ALLEN LANE an imprint of PENGUIN BOOKS ALLEN LANE Published by the Penguin Group Penguin Books Ltd, 80 Strand, London we2R ORL, England Penguin Group IUSA) Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014, USA Penguin Group ICanada), 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 700, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4P 2Y3 la division of Pearson Penguin Canada Inc.) Penguin Ireland, 25 St Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, Ireland la division of Penguin Books Ltd) Penguin Group IAustralia), 250 Camberwell Road, Camberwell. Victoria 3124. Austra1ia (a division of Pearson Australia Group Pty Ltd) Penguin Books India Pvt Ltd, II Community Centre, Panchsheel Park. New Delhi - 110 017, India Penguin Group INZ), 67 Apollo Drive, Rosedale, North Shore 0632, New Zealand la division of Pearson New Zealand Ltd) Penguin Books ISouth Africa) IPty) Ltd, 24 Sturdee Avenue, Rosebank, Johannesburg 2196, South Africa Penguin Books Ltd, Registered Offices: 80 Strand, London we2R ORL, England www.penguin.com First published in the United States of America by The Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. 2008 First published in Great Britain by Allen Lane 2008 Copyright © Clay Shirky, 2008 The moral right of the author has been asserted AU rights reserved Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise). without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book Printed in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, St Ives pic A CI P catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library www.greenpenguin.co.uk Penguin Books is committed (0 a sustainable future D MIXed Sources for our business, our readers and our planer.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Citizen Journalists: Why Congress Should Adopt a Broad Federal Shield Law
    YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Protecting Citizen Journalists: Why Congress Should Adopt a Broad Federal Shield Law Stephanie B. Turner* INTRODUCTION On August 1, 20o6, a federal district judge sent Josh Wolf, a freelance video journalist and blogger, to prison.' Wolf, a recent college graduate who did not work for a mainstream media organization at the time, captured video footage of an anti-capitalist protest in California and posted portions of the video on his blog.2 As part of an investigation into charges against protestors whose identi- ties were unknown, federal prosecutors subpoenaed Wolf to testify before a grand jury and to hand over the unpublished portions of his video.' Wolf re- fused to comply with the subpoena, arguing that the First Amendment allows journalists to shield their newsgathering materials.4 The judge disagreed, and, as * Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2012; Barnard College, B.A. 2009. Thank you to Adam Cohen for inspiration; to Emily Bazelon, Patrick Moroney, Natane Single- ton, and the participants of the Yale Law Journal-Yale Law & Policy Review student scholarship workshop for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts; and to Rebecca Kraus and the editors of the Yale Law & Policy Review for their careful editing. 1. See Order Finding Witness Joshua Wolf in Civil Contempt and Ordering Con- finement at 2, In re Grand Jury Proceedings to Joshua Wolf, No. CR 06-90064 WHA (N.D. Cal. 2006); Jesse McKinley, Blogger Jailed After Defying Court Orders, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 2, 2006, at A15. 2. For a detailed description of the facts of this case, see Anthony L.
    [Show full text]
  • As Judith Miller Sat in a Virginia Jail Cell After Her Failed Attempts to Keep
    JOURNAL OF MEDIA LAW & ETHICS Editor ERIC B. EASTON, PROFESSOR OF LAW University of Baltimore School of Law EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS BENJAMIN BENNETT-CARPENTER, Special Lecturer, Oakland University (Michigan) WALTER M. BRASCH, Professor of Mass Comm., Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania L. SUSAN CARTER, Professor, Michigan State University LOUIS A. DAY, Alumni Professor, Louisiana State University ANTHONY FARGO, Associate Professor, Indiana University AMY GAJDA, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois STEVEN MICHAEL HALLOCK, Assistant Professor, Point Park University MARTIN E. HALSTUK, Associate Professor, Pennsylvania State University CHRISTOPHER HANSON, Associate Professor, University of Maryland ELLIOT KING, Professor, Loyola University Maryland JANE KIRTLEY, Silha Professor of Media Ethics & Law, University of Minnesota NORMAN P. LEWIS, Assistant Professor, University of Florida PAUL S. LIEBER, Assistant Professor, University of South Carolina KAREN M. MARKIN, Director of Research Development, University of Rhode Island KIRSTEN MOGENSEN, Associate Professor, Roskilde University (Denmark) KATHLEEN K. OLSON, Associate Professor, Lehigh University RICHARD J. PELTZ, Professor of Law, University of Arkansas-Little Rock School of Law KEVIN WALL SAUNDERS, Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law JAMES LYNN STEWART, Associate Professor, Nicholls State University DOREEN WEISENHAUS, Associate Professor, University of Hong Kong KYU HO YOUM, Jonathan Marshall First Amendment Chair Professor, Univ. of Oregon Journal of Media Law & Ethics, Volume 2, Numbers 1/2 (Winter/Spring 2010) 1 PREVIEW these new and recent titles at www.MarquetteBooks.com Jennifer Jacobs Henderson, Defending the Good Tomasz Pludowski (ed.), How the World’s News News: The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Plan to Expand Media Reacted to 9/11: Essays from Around the the First Amendment (2010).
    [Show full text]