DOCSLIB.ORG

Freedom of Press and Other Media-Related Issues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Freedom of Press and Other Media-Related Issues CHAPTER 13 FREEDOM OF PRESS AND OTHER MEDIA-RELATED ISSUES Outline I. History of Freedom of the Press A. Pre-Revolutionary prior restraints 1. British sought to prevent criticism of government and its agencies a. Passed tax laws to suppress publication of comments and criticisms of the King and his policies B. Post-Revolutionary War 1. Massachusetts legislature passed Stamp Act 2. Leads to passage of First Amendment C. Selective incorporation 1. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 652 (1925) a. Freedom of press made applicable to the states (1) Right is not absolute b. Prior restraints found constitutionally impermissible c. Court will use strict scrutiny when state acts to impose prior restraint II. Special Privileges of the Media A. Court has never recognized special privileges for the media 1. Ambiguity exists because press freedom not deemed part of overall right to free expression 2. Court pronouncements on special privileges for the media a. Publisher has no special immunity from the application of general laws b. Restrictions on publishers’ rights (1) Cannot publish information that is false or damaging to one’s reputation (2) Journalists may be punished for contempt of court (3) No guarantee of special access to information not generally available to the public B. Specific issues 1. Appearance before grand jury to reveal source a. Branzburg v. Hayes, 405 U.S. 665 (1972) (1) Compelling journalist to answer questions about sources before a grand jury does not violate First Amendment free press guarantee (2) Necessary for the grand jury to perform its function (a) Granting privilege to journalists would undermine the authority and ability of the grand jury function b. No federal privilege for journalists (1) History of First Amendment leads to this conclusion (2) Necessary for effective law enforcement (3) Forecloses informants’ ability to escape prosecution 2. Search of newspaper office a. Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978) 88 Freedom of Press and Other Media-Related Issues 89 (1) Search does not require specific proceedings from those required by the Fourth Amendment (2) Does not constitute prior restraint 3. Taxation on paper and ink used in publishing a. Minnesota Star and Tribune Company v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983) (1) Court found (a) Press cannot be singled out for special privileges or special burdens (b) No evidence that legislature censoring newspaper (2) Court employed strict scrutiny (a) State unable to provide compelling government interest that could only be accomplished through use of the tax 4. Confidentiality agreements a. Cohen v. Cowles Media Company, 501 U.S. 663 (1991) (1) Facts: Source of information on political candidate provided information only after newspaper signed confidentiality agreement, then sued when he was identified in the publication (2) Court found that laws applying to the general population do not violate the First Amendment because they have an incidental effect on newsgathering (a) First Amendment does not grant the press limitless protection (3) First Amendment does not give the press the right to disregard promises 5. Generally the law does not single out the press or treat the press differently from the general population III. Government Attempts to Restrain Press A. Prior restraints in general 1. Attempts to use prior restraints held unconstitutional a. Near v. Minnesota b. New York Times Company v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) B. Fair trial v. freedom of press 1. Tension between public’s right to know and defendant’s right to a fair trial a. Unlimited information about defendant may diminish ability to ensure defendant’s Sixth Amendment fair trial guarantee 2. Court’s pronouncements on fair trial/free press issue a. Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941) (1) Prior restraints on pretrial coverage are unconstitutional unless the government shows a clear and present danger to the administration of justice b. Shepard v. Florida, 341 U.S. 50 (1951) (1) Fair trial guarantee overrides the right of the press to report the news c. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966) (1) Uncontrolled pretrial publicity violates defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial (2) Court set forth safeguards to avoid future problems (a) Court control of courthouse, courtroom, and proceedings (b) Court controls number of reporters in courtroom during trial (c) Court controls conduct of reporters in courtroom (d) Insulating witnesses prior to trial and ordering witnesses to refrain from speaking with media (e) Granting continuances or change of venue motions (f) Sequestering the jury (g) Efforts to control the dissemination of information by the police, witnesses, and counsel C. Gag orders 1. Definition: orders designed to keep attorneys, parties, or witnesses from discussing matters before the court with the press 2. Constitutionality of gag orders a. Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) 90 Chapter 13 (1) Court acknowledged that pervasive pretrial publicity will not necessarily produce an unfair trial (2) Court reiterated that prior restraints are unconstitutional (3) Provided test similar to that in United States v. Dennis (a) Gravity of evil discounted by its improbability justifies invasion of speech necessary to avoid danger (4) Applied test to determine whether gag order proper in present case (a) Judge’s assessment of pretrial publicity was speculative (b) Alternatives available to ensure fair trial (5) Conclusion: Gag orders should be used sparingly b. Seattle Times Company v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (1) Gag orders may be used when they further (a) “An important or substantial government interest” (b) Unrelated to suppression of speech (c) The limitation is no greater than necessary to protect the state’s interest c. Gag orders will be upheld when they keep attorneys from disseminating information obtained in civil discovery D. Closure orders 1. Courts may close pretrial proceedings to the public and press to ensure uncontaminated potential jury pool a. Gannett Company, Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979) (1) Court should weigh the interest of the press and public against defendant’s right to a fair trial (2) Proceedings may be closed when defendant’s right is found weightier 2. There is a presumption of openness for criminal trials 3. Closure of criminal trial may be constitutional if a. Balancing test set forth in Gannett is employed b. Determination made that there is an overriding state interest served by closing the trial in the absence of other means of preserving the right to a fair trial (1) Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) IV. Accessing Government-Held Information A. Press does not have a right to information generally inaccessible to the public B. No recognized constitutional right to have government assistance in obtaining information 1. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) a. Journalists claim right to interview prisoners b. Court found that regulation preventing such interviews was designed to maintain prison security c. Constitution does not require the government to give the press special access to information not available to the general public 2. Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1977) a. Press argues that there is an implied right of access to government-controlled information b. Court recognized the public interest in prison conditions and the role of the press in providing that information c. Court found no basis for finding a First Amendment guarantee of a right of access (1) Discussed alternative channels available for the information V. Differing Rules for Broadcast Media A. Legal difference between broadcast and print media based on 1. Airwaves are limited 2. Must be regulated by government 3. Red Lion Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) a. Challenge to fairness doctrine requiring both sides of a public issue to get fair coverage b. Court determined that regulation of broadcast media is necessary c. Found two-prong duty required by fairness doctrine Freedom of Press and Other Media-Related Issues 91 (1) Must give coverage to public issues (2) Coverage must be fair by allowing for opposing views d. Requires that an individual be given time to respond to personal attacks e. Upholds the FCC’s ability to regulate the broadcast media B. Content/Content-Neutral Regulation 1. FCC has authority to make and enforce regulations not addressed to content 2. Court reluctant to allow content-based regulation 3. Court used mid-level scrutiny for content-based regulation a. FCC v. League of Women Voters, 568 U.S. 364 (1984) (1) Balancing of interest with regulation upheld only when government interest outweighs broadcaster’s constitutional rights (2) Regulation must be narrowly tailored (3) Competing interests decided based on particular circumstances 4. Difference between cable television and regular broadcast media a. Strict scrutiny for content-based regulations involving cable television b. For content-neutral regulations involving cable television, mid-level scrutiny is used VI. Summary A. Press enjoys constitutional protection 1. Protection is not absolute 2. Government may regulate under certain circumstance a. Fair trial/free press b. Prior restraint B. Standard of review dependent on type of media involved 1. Print media—strict scrutiny 2. Traditional broadcast media a. Rational relationship for content-neutral regulation b. Mid-level scrutiny for content-based regulation 3. Cable television a. Mid-level scrutiny for content-neutral regulation b. Strict scrutiny for content-based regulation Key Terms and Definitions freedom of the press: The First Amendment right of the press to publish most things “without censor- ship or prior restraint,” to be free from unreasonable attempts to punish what has already been published and other rights. gag orders: 1. A judge’s order to lawyers and witnesses that they discuss the trial with no outsiders, reporters in particular.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LOWE Leads DOT Into High-Tech Era of Mobility
    OCTOBER 20, 2017 The business journal serving Central Iowa’s Cultivation Corridor Price: $1.75 LOWE leads DOT into high-tech era of mobility MARK LOWE director, Iowa Department of Transportation businessrecord.com | Twier: @businessrecord @businessrecord | Twier: businessrecord.com We can help with a plan consultation. Am I meeting my ® Jared Clauss, CRPS 'JSTU7JDF1SFTJEFOU¾8FBMUI.BOBHFNFOU 'JOBODJBM"EWJTPS ŖEVDJBSZPCMJHBUJPOT 4FOJPS3FUJSFNFOU1MBO$POTVMUBOU BTBQMBOTQPOTPS KBSFEDMBVTT!VCTDPN Timothy P. Woods 4FOJPS7JDF1SFTJEFOU¾8FBMUI.BOBHFNFOU "TBSFUJSFNFOUQMBOTQPOTPS ZPVÁSFGBDFEXJUIDPOTUBOUDIBOHFBOEDPNQMFYJUZJONBOBHJOH 1PSUGPMJP.BOBHFS ZPVSŖEVDJBSZSFTQPOTJCJMJUJFT BTXFMMBTIFMQJOHFNQMPZFFTNBYJNJ[FUIFJSSFUJSFNFOUTBWJOHT UJNPUIZQXPPET!VCTDPN "OFYQFSJFODFE3FUJSFNFOU1MBO$POTVMUBOUBU6#4DBOIFMQXJUIBDPOTVMUBUJPOBOESFWJFX PGCFTUQSBDUJDFT Woods Clauss Wealth Management UBS Financial Services Inc. 8FDBOIFMQZPV .JMMT$JWJD1BSLXBZ 4VJUF – Enhance your planXJUIPVUDIBOHJOHQSPWJEFST 8FTU%FT.PJOFT *" ¾ 4FMFDUBOEreview investments ¾ &WBMVBUFplan expenses ¾ 3FWJFXBOEFTUBCMJTInew plan features – Educate and prepareFNQMPZFFTGPSSFUJSFNFOU 6#4IBTEFMJWFSFESFUJSFNFOUQMBODPOTVMUJOHTFSWJDFTGPSNPSFUIBOZFBSTBTBŖEVDJBSZ "OEBTPOFPGUIFXPSMEÁTMFBEJOHXFBMUINBOBHFST ZPVSFNQMPZFFTXJMMCFOFŖUGSPN FEVDBUJPOCBTFEPOPVSLFFOŖOBODJBMJOTJHIUT-FUÁTTUBSUBDPOWFSTBUJPO ubs.com/fa/jaredclauss October 20, 2017 20, October ubs.com/rpcs 6#43FUJSFNFOU1MBO$POTVMUJOH4FSWJDFTJTBOJOWFTUNFOUBEWJTPSZQSPHSBN%FUBJMTSFHBSEJOHUIFQSPHSBN JODMVEJOHGFFT TFSWJDFT GFBUVSFTBOETVJUBCJMJUZBSFQSPWJEFEJOUIF"%7%JTDMPTVSF"TBŖSN
    [Show full text]
  • Law Division
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 401 561 CS 215 569 TITLE Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (79th, Anaheim, CA, August 10-13, 1996). Law Division. INSTITUTION Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. PUB DATE Aug 96 NOTE 456p.; For other sections of these proceedings, see CS 215 569-580. PUB TYPE Collected Works Conference Proceedings (021) EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PC19 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Copyrights; *Court Litigation; *Freedom of Information; *Freedom of Speech; *Government Role; Homosexuality; Juvenile Courts; Libel and Slander; Policy Formation; Programming (Broadcast); Telecommunications; War; World Wide Web IDENTIFIERS Fairness Doctrine; Media Coverage; Prisoners Rights; Telecommunications Act 1996 ABSTRACT The law section of the Proceedings contains the following 12 papers: "Middle Justice: Anthony Kennedy's Freedom of Expression Jurisprudence" (Evelyn C. Ellison); "Defending the News Media's Right of Access to the Battlefield" (Timothy H. Hoyle); "The Freedom of Information Act and Access to Computerized Government - Information" (Hsiao-Yin Hsueh); "Opening the Doors to Juvenile Court: Is There an Emerging Right of Public Access?" (Thomas A. Hughes); "Linking Copyright to Home Pages" (Matt Jackson); "Protecting Expressive Rights on Society's Fringe: Social Change and Gay and Lesbian Access to Forums" 'Koehler) ;'Thy Nature of Defamation: Social h,res an,. Accusations of Homosexuality" (Elizabeth M. Koehler); "Radio Public Affairs Programming since the Fairness Doctrine" (Kenneth D. Loomis); "Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. Revisited: An Assessment of the Case's Impact So Far" (Hugh J. Martin); The Third-Person Effect and Attitudes toward Expression" (Mark Paxton); "Televising Executions: A Prisoner's Right of Privacy" (Karl H.
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Annual Report Contents
    NEWSPAPER/ONLINE PUBLISHING TELEVISION BROADCASTING MAGAZINE PUBLISHING CABLE TELEVISION 04EDUCATION The Washington Post Company 2004 Annual Report Contents Financial Highlights, 1 Letter to Shareholders, 2 Corporate Directory, 12 Form 10-K Financial Highlights (in thousands, except per share amounts) 2004 2003 % Change Operating revenue $ 3,300,104 $ 2,838,911 + 16% Income from operations $ 563,006 $ 363,820 + 55% Net income $ 332,732 $ 241,088 + 38% Diluted earnings per common share $ 34.59 $ 25.12 + 38% Dividends per common share $ 7.00 $ 5.80 + 21% Common shareholders’ equity per share $ 251.93 $ 217.46 + 16% Diluted average number of common shares outstanding 9,592 9,555 – Operating Revenue Income from Operations Net Income ($ in millions) ($ in millions) ($ in millions) 04 3,300 04 563 04 333 03 2,839 03 364 03 241 02 2,584 02 378 02 204 01 2,411 01 220 01 230 00 2,410 00 340 00 136 Diluted Earnings Return on Average Common per Common Share Shareholders’ Equity ($) 04 34.59 04 14.8% 03 25.12 03 12.3% 02 21.34 02 11.5% 01 24.06 01 14.4% 00 14.32 00 9.5% 1 2004 ANNUAL REPORT A LETTER FROM DONALD E. GRAHAM To Our Shareholders For Red Sox fans and The Washington Post Company, 2004 was annus mirabilis, an amazing year. Many, many things went well for our company. Some were long planned and the result of careful work; others were strokes of luck. One statistic sums it up. Operating income of $563 million was $175 million higher than the best year we ever had, $388 million in 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Applied Business and Economics
    Journal of Applied Business and Economics North American Business Press Atlanta - Seattle – South Florida - Toronto Journal of Applied Business and Economics Editors Dr. Adam Davidson Dr. William Johnson Editor-In-Chief Dr. David Smith NABP EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Dr. Andy Bertsch - MINOT STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Jacob Bikker - UTRECHT UNIVERSITY, NETHERLANDS Dr. Bill Bommer - CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO Dr. Michael Bond - UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA Dr. Charles Butler - COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Jon Carrick - STETSON UNIVERSITY Dr. Mondher Cherif - REIMS, FRANCE Dr. Daniel Condon - DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY, CHICAGO Dr. Bahram Dadgostar - LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY, CANADA Dr. Deborah Erdos-Knapp - KENT STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Bruce Forster - UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, KEARNEY Dr. Nancy Furlow - MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY Dr. Mark Gershon - TEMPLE UNIVERSITY Dr. Philippe Gregoire - UNIVERSITY OF LAVAL, CANADA Dr. Donald Grunewald - IONA COLLEGE Dr. Samanthala Hettihewa - UNIVERSITY OF BALLARAT, AUSTRALIA Dr. Russell Kashian - UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, WHITEWATER Dr. Jeffrey Kennedy - PALM BEACH ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY Dr. Jerry Knutson - AG EDWARDS Dr. Dean Koutramanis - UNIVERSITY OF TAMPA Dr. Malek Lashgari - UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD Dr. Priscilla Liang - CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, CHANNEL ISLANDS Dr. Tony Matias - MATIAS AND ASSOCIATES Dr. Patti Meglich - UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, OMAHA Dr. Robert Metts - UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO Dr. Adil Mouhammed - UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD Dr. Roy Pearson - COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY Dr. Veena Prabhu - CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES Dr. Sergiy Rakhmayil - RYERSON UNIVERSITY, CANADA Dr. Robert Scherer - CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Ira Sohn - MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Reginal Sheppard - UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA Dr. Carlos Spaht - LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, SHREVEPORT Dr. Ken Thorpe - EMORY UNIVERSITY Dr. Robert Tian – SHANTOU UNIVERSITY Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohen V. Cowles Media and Its Significance for First Amendment Law and Journalism
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 3 (1994) Issue 2 Article 3 February 1994 Cohen v. Cowles Media and its Significance for First Amendment Law and Journalism Jerome A. Barron Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Repository Citation Jerome A. Barron, Cohen v. Cowles Media and its Significance for First Amendment Law and Journalism, 3 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 419 (1994), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol3/ iss2/3 Copyright c 1994 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj COHEN v. COWLES MEDIA AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR FIRST AMENDMENT LAW AND JOURNALISM Jerome A. Barron* I. WHEN THE SOURCE BECOMES THE STORY May a source enforce a promise of confidentiality given it by a news- paper reporter? In 1991, the United States Supreme Court considered this issue in the case of Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.' Cohen was a First Amendment version of man bites dog. The source and not the reporter sued to protect reporter-source confidentiality. The defendant was not the state but the press. For the American newspaper press, Cohen was a difficult case. In the past, the press had contended that the First Amendment protect- ed a reporter from being forced by the state, or anyone else, to divulge a confidential source. In Cohen, however, the newspaper defendants were reduced to arguing that, in essence, the First Amendment was two-faced.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview Not Confine the Discussion in This Report to Those Specific Issues Within the Commission’S Regulatory Jurisdiction
    television, cable and satellite media outlets operate. Accordingly, we do Overview not confine the discussion in this report to those specific issues within the Commission’s regulatory jurisdiction. Instead, we describe below 1 MG Siegler, Eric Schmidt: Every 2 Days We Create As Much Information a set of inter-related changes in the media landscape that provide the As We Did Up to 2003, TECH CRUNCH, Aug 4, 2010, http://techcrunch. background for future FCC decision-making, as well as assessments by com/2010/08/04/schmidt-data/. other policymakers beyond the FCC. 2 Company History, THomsoN REUTERS (Company History), http://thom- 10 Founders’ Constitution, James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolu- sonreuters.com/about/company_history/#1890_1790 (last visited Feb. tions, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_ 8, 2011). speechs24.html (last visited Feb. 7, 2011). 3 Company History. Reuter also used carrier pigeons to bridge the gap in 11 Advertising Expenditures, NEwspapER AssoC. OF AM. (last updated Mar. the telegraph line then existing between Aachen and Brussels. Reuters 2010), http://www.naa.org/TrendsandNumbers/Advertising-Expendi- Group PLC, http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/ tures.aspx. Reuters-Group-PLC-Company-History.html (last visited Feb. 8, 2011). 12 “Newspapers: News Investment” in PEW RESEARCH CTR.’S PRoj. foR 4 Reuters Group PLC (Reuters Group), http://www.fundinguniverse.com/ EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM, THE StatE OF THE NEws MEDIA 2010 (PEW, company-histories/Reuters-Group-PLC-Company-History.html (last StatE OF NEws MEDIA 2010), http://stateofthemedia.org/2010/newspa- visited Feb. 8, 2011). pers-summary-essay/news-investment/.
    [Show full text]
  • The Washington Post Company 2003Annual Report
    The Washington Post Company 2003 Annual Report Contents Financial Highlights 01 To Our Shareholders 02 Corporate Directory 16 Form 10-K FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (in thousands, except per share amounts) 2003 2002 % Change Operating revenue $ 2,838,911 $ 2,584,203 + 10% Income from operations $ 363,820 $ 377,590 – 4% Net income Before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle in 2002 $ 241,088 $ 216,368 + 11% After cumulative effect of change in accounting principle in 2002 $ 241,088 $ 204,268 + 18% Diluted earnings per common share Before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle in 2002 $ 25.12 $ 22.61 + 11% After cumulative effect of change in accounting principle in 2002 $ 25.12 $ 21.34 + 18% Dividends per common share $ 5.80 $ 5.60 + 4% Common shareholders’ equity per share $ 217.46 $ 193.18 + 13% Diluted average number of common shares outstanding 9,555 9,523 – Operating Revenue Income from Operations Net Income ($ in millions) ($ in millions) ($ in millions) 03 2,839 03 364 03 241 02 2,584 02 378 02 204 01 2,411 01 220 01 230 00 2,410 00 340 00 136 99 2,212 99 388 99 226 Diluted Earnings Return on Average Common per Common Share Shareholders’ Equity ($) 03 25.12 03 12.3% 02 21.34 02 11.5% 01 24.06 01 14.4% 00 14.32 00 9.5% 99 22.30 99 15.2% 01 The Washington Post Company The undramatic financial results of 2003—earnings per share a bit higher than last year’s—mask a year in which some important things happened at The Washington Post Company.
    [Show full text]
  • Ventura V. the Cincinnati Enquirer: the Sixth Circuit Correctly
    VENTURA V. THE CINCINNATI ENQUIRER: THE SIXTH CIRCUIT CORRECTLY DETERMINED A NEWS REPORTER'S DISCLOSURE OF A CONFIDENTIAL NEWS SOURCE'S CRIMINAL ACTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT WAS ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED, BUT THE COURT IMPROPERLY IGNORED WHETHER THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER A PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL THEORY INTRODUCTION Stories of news reporters going to prison to protect the identity of confidential news sources present difficult questions about the func- tion of the media in our society.1 Historically, reporters have kept their promises not to divulge the identity of their confidential news sources. 2 More recently, in 2003, the most prominent leak investiga- tion related to the disclosure of the identity of Valerie Wilson as an undercover agent for the Central Intelligence Agency.3 Reporters were subpoenaed to testify about their news sources.4 Judith Miller, who was a New York Times reporter at the time, initially refused to disclose her source and spent eighty-five days in jail as a result.5 Miller finally appeared before the grand jury after her source volunta- rily released her from her promise of confidentiality with respect to their conversations. 6 However, a handful of reporters have begun to not only willingly divulge the identity of their confidential sources, but have also tried to gain constitutional protection in doing so. 7 1. See Timothy J. Fallon, Stop the Presses: Reporter-Source ConfidentialityAgree- ments and the Case for Enforcement, 33 B.C. L. REV. 559, 559 (1992). 2. See generally Ex ParteA. M. Lawrence, 48 P. 124 (Cal. 1897) (reporter went to prison for failing to divulge the source of information regarding bribery allegations against state senators); Joslyn v.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMUNICATOR January 2014
    Schurz COMMUNICATOR January 2014 50th anniversary JFK assassination ~ Stories page 4-5 What’s on the inside The lead story in this issue of the Communicator on page 6 is on the announcement that Schurz Communications has agreed to make another acquisition, KOTA-TV in Rapid City, Dan Carpenter, South Dakota and three satellite stations. multi-media journal- ist for KTUU-TV in Schurz Communications is familiar with the Black Hills market, having previously Anchorage, Alaska, acquired New Rushmore Radio, a group of six radio stations in is a graduate of the the Rapid City area. SCI has one other South Dakota property, University of Alaska the Aberdeen News American, at the other end of the state. Anchorage. A recent Also on page 6 is a story unique to the newspaper industry issue of the school’s that has left a trail of shrinking newsroom staffs. The newspaper included Bloomington Herald-Times has announced it will be adding to an in-depth profile its newsroom in 2014. Editor Bob Zaltsberg writes that four of Carpenter. It is fulltime and one part-time position will be added, in a reinvest- reprinted on page 7. ment initiative by the newspaper in its local news and readers. Halloween has long been a favor- “As often is the case with the Herald-Times,” Zaltsberg wrote, ite holiday for “we’re embarking on a course that many who study the media Schurz today would call unconventional. As everyone moves toward Communications digital, why should anyone double down on print?…We’re companies. reinvesting in what’s long been our core product, the printed Employees come newspaper, while we continue to improve and expand our digi- to work that day tal offerings.” with costumes A feature in this issue of the Communicator worthy of special attention is the column writ- that stretch the ten by Martin Switalski.
    [Show full text]
  • 28Mar201911063051
    28MAR201911063051 THE McCLATCHY COMPANY 2100 Q Street Sacramento, California 95816 April 5, 2019 To our Shareholders: I am pleased to invite you to attend the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “Annual Meeting”) of The McClatchy Company (the “Company”) on Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., Pacific Time, to be held virtually by means of a live webcast. You will be able to attend the Annual Meeting, vote your shares electronically and submit your questions during the live webcast of the meeting by visiting www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/MNI2019 and entering your 16 - digit control number included in the notice containing instructions on how to access Annual Meeting materials, your proxy card, or the voting instructions that accompanied your proxy materials. You will not be able to attend the Annual Meeting in person. At this year’s meeting, you are being asked to: (i) elect directors for the coming year; (ii) ratify the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as McClatchy’s independent registered public accounting firm; (iii) approve an amendment to The McClatchy Company 2012 Omnibus Incentive Plan, as amended and restated (the “2012 Incentive Plan”) to increase the number of shares of Class A Common Stock authorized for issuance under the 2012 Incentive Plan; and (iv) consider a shareholder proposal described in the Proxy Statement, if properly presented at the Annual Meeting. The notice of meeting and Proxy Statement that follow this letter describe these items in detail. Please take the time to read these materials carefully. Your Board of Directors unanimously recommends that you vote in accordance with the Board’s recommendations on the four (4) proposals included in the Proxy Statement.
    [Show full text]
  • January-16-Business-Forum-At-Wells-Fargo/) Thursday, January 16, 2020, 11:30 A.M
    Recap of the East Town Business Partnership Business Forum The History of Newsmakers in East Town: The Star Tribune Story (https://easttownmpls.org/presentations-now-available-from-the-january-16-business-forum-at-wells-fargo/) Thursday, January 16, 2020, 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Wells Fargo, 550 South 4th Street, 15th Floor Weatherball Room Downtown East Neighborhood of Minneapolis I. Welcome, Introductions and Announcements John Campobasso, ETBP President and Vice President and Manager of Business Development at Kraus- Anderson, welcomed the audience, thanked Wells Fargo Bank for hosting, then asked everyone to introduce themselves: Carina Aleckson, Catholic Charities Marc Berg, J Selmer Law Jacquie Berglund, FINNEGANS, FINNOVATION Lab Cyrese Boesel, Elliot Park Hotel Mary Brickner, Kraus-Anderson Tyler Chapman, Allodium Investment Consultants Jay Cowles, Twin Cities Business and Community Leader Rick Crispino, Bridgewater Lofts Rebecca Duvik, PCs for People Chris Fleck, North Central University Kim Forbes, Minnesota Adult & Teen Challenge, Elliot Park Neighborhood, Inc. Angela Gruber, North Central University Daniel Gumnit, People Serving People Brent Hanson, Wells Fargo Christie Rock Hantge, ETBP Staff Cyndy Harrison, Sawatdee Thai Restaurant Robin Hoppenrath, Hennepin Healthcare Foundation Daniel Jacobsen, Pixelwerx Cory Johnson, Mill City Summer Opera Tom Jollie, Padilla Kory Kingsbury, Renaissance Hotel and Residence Inn at The Depot Minneapolis Mike Klingensmith, Minneapolis Star Tribune Julia Lauwagie, Minnesota Adult & Teen Challenge Brian Maupin, Allied Parking, Inc. Zev Radziwill, Green Minneapolis Rdonn Robinson, Best Western Normandy Inn Penny Schumacher, Hennepin Healthcare Foundation Carletta Sweet, Downtown Minneapolis Neighborhood Organization Al Swintek, CenterPoint Energy Takia Thomas, North Central University Joe Videle, Pulse Movement ETBP Executive Director Dan Collison also welcomed the audience and thanked the many layers of their organizations that contribute to the vitality of East Town.
    [Show full text]
  • Promises of Confidentiality to News Sources After Cohen V
    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 24 Article 4 Issue 2 Notes and Comments January 1994 Promises of Confidentiality to News Sources After Cohen v. Cowles Media Company: A Survey of Newspaper Editors Daniel Levin Ellen Rubert Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel Levin and Ellen Rubert, Promises of Confidentiality to News Sources After Cohen v. Cowles Media Company: A Survey of Newspaper Editors, 24 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (1994). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol24/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Levin and Rubert: Cohen v. Cowles Media Company PROMISES OF CONFIDENTIALITY TO NEWS SOURCES AFTER COHEN v. COWLES MEDIA COMPANY: A SURVEY OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS DANIEL A. LEVIN* ELLEN BLUMBERG RUBERT** I. INTRODUCTION If a reporter promises confidentiality to a news source in ex­ change for information, and the reporter's editorial superiors break that promise by publishing the information and disclosing the source's name, may the source recover damages for breach of promise under state law without violating the First Amend­ ment? In Cohen u. Cowles Media Company, the Minnesota state courts and the United States Supreme Court addressed that question. 1 The courts ultimately decided that such a source may * Instructor in Business and Employment Law, University of Colorado, College of Business.
    [Show full text]