J1100 exam 3
partisanship and polarization are real problems with real consequences for journalism
declining trust accusations of bias and "fake news" economic impact civilization has produced one idea more powerful than any other: the notion that people can govern themselves. and it has created a largely unarticulated theory of info to sustain that idea called journalism.
causes of polarization
difficult to pinpoint but some common explanation changes within the parties themselves gerrymandering of electoral districts money in politics, negative advertising rise of "culture war" issues generational changes (end of WW2 generation) fractured media system social media
polarization
division into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs. divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes animosity toward the other "tribe"
cognitive biases
errors, irrationalities, and shortcuts in thinking that affect our decisions and judgments these suggest the "ideal citizen" may be something to strive for, but difficulty to fully realize
five freedoms
religion (freedom from and freedom to) speech press assembly (+ implicit freedom of association) Petition of government
role of info
sharp divergencies- in consumption and trust of news media source credibility as a predictor of trust limited evidence of liberal bias in mainstream journalism (ex: NYT, Washington Post) social media and the worsening of echo chambers enables falsehoods to go viral
ethics as a method
the process of reasoning through conflicting moral claims to find the best (or least worst) option
what journalism can do is focus on the fundamentals- meeting the responsibilities that democracy demands and that citizens are entitled to expect
this will require hardworking, thoughtful journalism... like you
Purpose of the First Amendment
to help us fully become ourselves Individual self-fulfillment ...to help us discern truth through the open exchange of ideas Marketplace of ideas ...to safeguard self-governance in a democracy Self-governance ...to provide a balance between stability and change Safety valve ...to act as a counterweight to government Checking value
common principles across codes
truthfulness accuracy, verification context Minimizing harm Transparency Independence
what often gets overlooked
what kind of citizen does democracy need? what obligations do citizens have to journalists? what should journalists expect of citizens?
living areas
conservatives- attracted to small towns rural areas liberals prefer cities
basic expectations of citizens
consume the news more than that consume high quality news- range matters little if overall quality is poop become an educated consumer of news (ex: become "media literate") welcome ideas and views that challenge your own demand high standards from journalists (and communicate this to them) protect press and speech freedoms participate in democracy
Purposes of the First Amendment
First Amendment theories help us understand the goals of the First Amendment: Individual self-fulfillment Marketplace of ideas Self-governance Safety valve Checking value
What about bias?
From survey data: Public belief in partisan bias in journalism Local news media seen as less biased than national Trust in news media declining however, research does not substantiate these perceptions overall "the most defensible read of the literature is that the popular claim of an overall , systematic leftward tilt is unsupported" criticism are ideologically motivated the stronger the partisan you are, the more likely you are to believe "the media" is biased against your side
code of ethics definition
"A document that describes the loyalties, values, minimum standards, and aspirational goals of an individual or organization" (Roberts) Describes the behaviors necessary to reach ideals
what this means in practice?
"At all times, we report for our readers and listeners, not our sources. So our primary consideration when presenting the news is that we are fair to the truth. If our sources try to mislead us or put a false spin on the information they give us, we tell our audience. If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side, we acknowledge it in our reports. We strive to give our audience confidence that all sides have been considered and represented fairly" (NPR Ethics Handbook) Being a "truth vigilante" is not something new, but journalism doing what it has always supposed to have done
the first amendment
"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."
ethics is not the same as...
"Feelings" Feelings come into ethical decision-making but ethics means something deeper, not just "trusting your gut" Religion Most religions advocate high ethical standards but they are not one and the same; ethics can be independent of religion Following the law Law originates in ethics, but what is legal is not necessarily ethical and vice versa "I did it because I could" is not a defense rooted in ethics Minimalist vs. Maximalist Doing something because that's the way it's always been Need something rooted in principles, not habits or traditions Doing something because that's the way it's always been Must have a deeper meaning - reflect on why you are doing what you are doing Appeal to authority fallacy
snyder v. phelps justice samuel alito (in disset)
"Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case" "When grave injury is intentionally inflicted by means of an attack like the one at issue here, the First Amendment should not interfere with recovery."
Near v. Minnesota
(1931): Holding: Prior restraint is presumed unconstitutional Possible exceptions: "When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
New York Times v. Sullivan
(1964): 9-0 against Sullivan "There is a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials" "The First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity)"
New York Times v. US
(1971): "Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity" Prior restraint should be extremely rare and only allowable if it causes immediate and irreparable harm Upheld the constitutionality of prior restraint if it met these circumstances
FCC v. Pacifica
George Carlin's "seven dirty words" Cannot broadcast "language that describes in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times when there is a reasonable risk when children may be in the audience" Can't say the dirty seven on broadcast media from 6 am to 10 pm Punishment: Fine; possibly lose license to broadcast These do not apply to cable
time, place, and manner restrictions
Government must be viewpoint neutral and therefore cannot regulate the content of your speech (unless it falls within a First Amendment exception) Cannot only regulate left-wing speech Cannot only regulate anti-abortion speech But it can regulate the time, place, and manner that you say it When, where, and how A protest rally in front of your residence hall at noon? Sure! A protest rally in front of your residence hall at 3 o'clock in the morning? Nope
carson king
24, Iowa State student Raised millions of dollars for charity Des Moines Register reporter doing a profile of him discovered racist Tweets he had posted when he was 16 The issue: Ignore the Tweets, or include them in the profile? The Tweets were ultimately included in the profile - controversy ensues Reporter was fired from the paper after Tweets he had posted came to light Editor published a column explaining their decision-making
resolving dilemmas through ethical theories
3 main approaches outcome based duty based virtue based
ethical dilemmas
A true ethical dilemma involves a genuine conflict between two or more morally compelling courses of action Is it ethical for journalists to reveal their sources in a court of law, breaking a promise of confidentiality? Is it ethical for journalists to invade the privacy of politicians to investigate allegations of unethical conduct? Is it ethical for journalists to publish information that could see a public figure lose their job but would be beneficial to the public?
virtue ethics associated with journalism
Accuracy Fidelity (keeping promises) Integrity Courage Respect honesty
The objectivity trap
Accusations of bias are used as a weapon to de-legitimize critical journalism Tainting the product, the reporter, and the organization These accusations are often self-serving - they turn attention away from the subject toward the journalist They can also stem from misunderstandings about what objectivity actually means and how it applies
defamation
Basic definition: Injuring someone's reputation by publishing false information Forms: Slander (spoken) Libel (written)
imperfect duties
Beneficence Help improve the lives of others Gratitude Show appreciation to others Distributive justice Take a special interest in promoting the welfare of the disadvantaged Honesty Avoid misleading others Self-improvement Become a better person yourself (intellectually, morally, physically)
duty based approaches
British philosopher W. D. Ross developed a framework emphasizing duties - i.e., our obligations to one another These duties are prima facie, which means: Self-evident (need no justification) i.e., you do not need to justify telling the truth, it has an innate "goodness" Universal (apply to everybody) Intuitive (quickly learned) These duties can be perfect (in all circumstances) and imperfect (whenever possible)
What kind of speech does the First Amendment protect?
Burning an American flag in protest (Texas v Johnson) Viewing pornography in the home (stanley v georgia) Homophobic funeral protests claiming that fallen U.S. soldiers died as God's punishment of the United States for permitting homosexuality (snyder v phelps) Nazis parading in front of Holocaust survivors (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie) Lying in a political campaign by claiming to have won the Congressional Medal of Honor (united states v alvarez) Obtaining and publishing illegally taped conversations recorded by a third party (bartnicki v vopper) Publishing the name of a juvenile offender (Smith v. Daily Mail) Refusing to publish a reply from a public official who had been attacked by the newspaper (Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo) Advocating in writing or speech the overthrow of the U.S. government, as long as that overthrow is not imminent (yates v united states) Wearing a jacket that reads "**** the Draft" in a courthouse (cohen v california)
evolution
Codes have been continually revised to address new technologies (e.g., SPJ : "Prominently label sponsored content") and changing concepts (e.g., objectivity, transparency)
utility
Codes of ethics are distillations of values Reflect intersecting concerns of outcomes, duties, and character Should be used to guide decision-making but not seen as "mindless rule-following" (Roberts) Ethical dilemmas always require deep reflection, not looking at the rulebook Gives journalists tools to work through competing values (e.g., seek truth vs. minimize harm)
what do we mean by ethics
Comes from the Greek "ethos" (character/habit) Addresses questions about what is right/wrong and good/bad Concerned with what we do and why we do it Simple definition: Standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the situations they find themselves
digital journalism
Definition 1 (specific): News produced for online spaces and using digital technologies (tools that generate, store, or process data - e.g., social media, online games, multimedia, mobile phones) Definition 2 (general): A new approach to understanding journalism that has emerged over the last 25 years (or so) Has affected all aspects of journalism
duty based
Deontological The ethical thing to do is what conforms to an ethical rule (e.g., "Minimize harm," "Do not deceive") Good outcomes from good processes
premise of defamation law
If an individual's reputation has been damaged, it can be repaired through monetary damages However: The plaintiff (the "defamed") carries a heavy burden of proof Many cases are dismissed before ever coming to trial because of this
virtue based
Developing good character, looking to role models and what makes them virtuous people Ethics as a muscle memory - we become habituated to doing the right thing through practice
the role of the supreme court
Doctrine of judicial review: The Supreme Court has the final say on what the Constitution means Exceptions: Subsequent Supreme Court rulings Constitutional Amendments Doctrine of incorporation: Binds federal and state governments Composition of the Court matters significantly Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) - no federal shield law - 5-4 Citizens United v. FEC (2010) - unlimited campaign donations - 5-4
defamation how did we get here?
Early libel law came from the UK The right to protect perception Traditionally, truth was not a defense ("the greater the truth, the greater the libel") The role of John Peter Zenger General ignorance of First Amendment in 19th century court cases meant that by mid- 20th century, each state had its own set of libel laws
5 things we know about technological change
Essay by Neal Postman, 1998 1) "All technological change is a trade-off... a Faustian bargain... Culture always pays a price for technology." 2) "The advantages and disadvantages of new technologies are never distributed evenly." 3) "Embedded in every technology there is a powerful idea... a philosophy." 4) "Technological change is not additive; it is ecological" Red dye analogy "A new medium does not add something; it changes everything." 5) "Technology tends to become mythic; that is, perceived as part of the natural order of things, and therefore tends to control more of our lives than is good for us.... When a technology become mythic, it is always dangerous because it is then accepted as it is, and is therefore not easily susceptible to modification or control."
perfect duties
Fidelity Keep your promises Non-maleficence Avoid harming others Reparation Make up for harm you have caused Respect for others Don't treat people as means to an end Formal justice Ensure that people get what they deserve, enforce the "rules of the game"
commonly cited problems with objectivity
If everybody defines it differently, what use does it have? If we reduce it to one of its components, are we using the term the same way as others? Leads to "the view from nowhere" (Jay Rosen) There is a "somewhere" (a truth) and its journalists job to find it, not simply present competing perspectives about it "The journalism of assertion" (K & R) and "he said/she said" journalism "We're not saying the earth is flat; we're saying that HE SAID the world is flat." Allows the journalist to avoid taking a position but leads to absurdity "Balance as bias" in the context of global warming co
identifying ethical standard is difficult
If they are not based on feelings, religion, the law, tradition, etc., what are they based on? Philosophers have developed theories of ethical decision-making to answer the above questions Helps guide us in what we do... And how we evaluate what others do
indecency in broadcasting
Important context: Broadcasting is regulated Practical matter: There is a finite number of airwaves through which signals can travel Signals must be regulated so they do not overlap and block each other Philosophy: The airwaves belong to the people, so what is broadcast on them must be in the public interest Who may broadcast and what may be broadcast is thus regulated Unlike newspapers, broadcasters must receive a license Licenses can be revoked for failure to serve the public interest (increasingly rare)
what about private property?
In general, you do not have the right to enter private property without consent Residences Businesses Right of access (as a patron) but no right of newsgathering Shopping malls Legally, private property - no First Amendment requirement of owners to permit access to journalists Some states recognize shopping malls function like traditional town squares so can be treated as public forums
history
In the U.S., emerged in the "professionalization" era of the press in the late 19th/early 20th century Quest for professional status amid criticism of news practices Linked to emergence of journalism schools and textbooks about journalism American Society of News Editors (ASNE) first "general code" in 1923 Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) publishes its code in 1926
scope
Institutional/general) codes (e.g., SPJ) or organizational (e.g., codes of specific news orgs) Associations representing specific areas/platforms have their own codes, too Association of Food Journalists Association of Health Care Journalists American Society of Magazine Editors In the early 2000s, movement for a "bloggers code of ethics" and "build your own ethics code" (Online News Association) Attempts to develop a global ethics code have had mixed results
intrusion
Intruding on a person's privacy to get a story Location matters: Courts seek to establish if a person had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" Homes, hotel rooms, certain public places (e.g., restrooms, locker rooms) Generally, if in a public place, intrusion cannot occur because there is no such "reasonable expectation"
subway photo (see ethical theories powerpoint)
Issues involved Documentation versus publication Not graphic in the literal sense, but captures somebody's last moments - is it invasive of his privacy? Is it treating the subject with dignity? Does the duty to document truth conflict with the duty of respect? Reactions from other journalists: "The New York Post milked the death of someone for maximum commercial effect, with a full-page photo inside of his frozen helplessness... The marginal civic good served by the story — watch yourself on the subway platform — could have been performed in far more honorable ways" (David Carr, NYT) "Sickening front page from the New York Post. Imagine how this man's family feels" (Ian Prior, The Guardian)
public disclosure of private facts
It is illegal to publicize private information about a person if the matter that is publicized: Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and Is not of legitimate public concern or interest This is a difficult area of law because of it's subjectivity What do "private information," "highly offensive," "reasonable person," and "legitimate public concern" mean in practice?
snyder v phelps
Justice Roberts: "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorry, and - as it did here - inflict great pain. But... we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." "Debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open because speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values."
virtue ethics
Key question: What traits make somebody a good person? These traits are virtues Courage, wisdom, integrity, helpfulness, compassion, etc. Virtues reflect character A disposition to act a certain way consistently Emphasis is on practical wisdom (phronesis) - virtue can be practiced and taught; we become habituated to acting virtuously Focuses on ethics over the lifespan rather than as applied to specific "dilemmas" But can ask: Does this action represent the kind of person I am or want to be?
safety valve
Key thinker: Thomas Emerson "Freedom of speech promotes greater cohesion in a society because people are more ready to accept decisions that go against them if they have a part in the decision-making process" More speech means less violence Allows for gradual social change Argues that censorship will only worsen social problems "Fear breeds repression... repression breeds hate... hate menaces stable government... the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies" (Justice Louis Brandeis, Whitney v. California, 1927)
checking value
Key thinker: Vincent Blasi "The central premise of the checking value is that the abuse of official power is an especially serious evil - more serious than the abuse of private power, even by institutions such as large corporations which can affect the lives of millions of people" Strong government needs a counterweight Government will be fairer and more effective if monitored; need broad press and speech freedoms to facilitate that Watchdog function of the press
individual self-fullfillment
Key thinkers: John Locke, Thomas Emerson Free speech as an intrinsic good Outcomes (extrinsic) don't matter - expression is "a good unto itself" Expression makes us human We mature as humans through forming and expressions our opinions "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought" (Stanley v. Georgia)
marketplace of ideas
Key thinkers: John Milton, John Stuart Mill, Oliver Wendell Holmes Robust, wide-open debate helps us discover truth and advance knowledge The conflict between opinions helps us identify truth Complements the economic free market Competition, not censorship, roots out bad ideas "We do [Truth] injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple, who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?" (John Milton, Areopagitica) Society's ultimate good "is better reached by free trade in ideas... that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market" (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissent in Abrams vs. U.S., 1919)
prior restraint
Meaning: Government preventing the press from publishing Common forms: Government insisting on giving prior approval before something may be published or broadcast Government banning the publication/broadcasting of specific kinds of material outright
role of the internet
Mid-1990s: News organizations tentatively start registering websites, publishing news content online, and experimenting with the early web as a new medium for their content Created an opportunity for others to create their own news output (independent websites, blogs, etc.) "The people formerly known as the audience" (Jay Rosen) not only had greater access to information but the ability to create and share their own content Model shifts from "one to many" to "many to many"
How this matters (see both 2 questions above)
Newsrooms are unlikely to refer to "utilitarianism," "deontology," or "virtue ethics"... But they absolutely will refer to: Possible outcomes of news reporting Journalistic duties Role models and character These give us tools for how we explain and defend our conduct
does no law really mean no law?
No - courts have identified several exceptions, such as: Defamation Incitement to immediate violence Misleading commercial advertising Child pornography Copyright infringement
protecting confidential sources
No First Amendment right to protect confidential sources when called before a grand jury: "We are asked to create [a First Amendment right] to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do" (Branzburg v. Hayes, 1972) So, becomes a legislative matter State-by-state statutory protections ("shield laws") Great variation in who and what is protected
Two key questions guiding ethical decision-making:
On what do we base our ethical standards? How do those standards get applied to specific situations we face?
recording phone calls and conversations
One-party vs. Two-party consent One-party: One person in the conversation consents (this can include you) Two-parties: Both people in the conversation consent Missouri is a one-party state; 11 states are two-party states
objectivity as a norm
a norm= a practice guided by an ideal "at once a moral idea, a set of reporting and editing practices, and an observable pattern of news writing" ex: you can believe it, you can do it, you can see it maintains journalists authority as truth-tellers has allowed journalists to present themselves as "above" politics has been used as a defense mechanism by journalists
issues journalists regularly face
Protecting sources (and use of anonymous sources in general) Anonymity vs. Access Protecting victims of crime Honesty vs. Privacy/Respect Respecting people's privacy Privacy vs. Newsworthiness Undercover reporting Using deceptive means to illuminate a larger truth Conflicts of interest Tests of loyalty Correcting errors (esp. on social media) Remove the error - don't want wrong information to circulate but lacks transparency Preserve but correct the error - "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes" but demonstrates transparency and humility Graphic images Should your audience see reality, as horrific as it may be, or do you need to cater to their tastes?
code of ethics several purposes
Provide guidelines for the staff Link abstract ideals to specific practices (e.g., SPJ Code) Identify the values of the organization to the public - i.e., this is what we stand for Provide a standard that the public can hold them accountable to
subsequent developments
Public figures must prove actual malice Private figures must prove negligence (failure to exercise reasonable care)
what is meant by speech and press
Speech does not just mean spoken words Symbolic speech (e.g., flag burning, clothing, political donations) Though not spoken, they are communicative Press does not just mean journalists Treats written speech as possessing the same value of oral speech (think "printing press") "A fundamental personal right" that doesn't just apply to journalists (Branzburg v. Hayes) Supreme Court has recognized the importance of journalists to democracy
A process for ethical decision making
Step 1: Recognize an Ethical Issue Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Does this decision involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two "goods" or between two "bads"? Is this issue about more than what is legal or what is most efficient? Is there a moral dimension to the issue? Step 2: Get the Facts What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn more about the situation? Do I know enough to make a decision? What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are some concerns more important? Why? What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have I identified the full range of options? Step 3: Evaluate Alternative Actions Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm? (Utilitarian approach) Which option meets a core journalistic duty? (Deontological approach) Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (Virtue approach)å Step 4: Make a Decision and Test It Considering all these approaches, which option best addresses the situation? If I told someone I respect which option I have chosen, what would they say? If I told my audience which option I have chosen, what would they say? Step 5: Act and Reflect on the Outcome How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all involved? How did my decision turn out and what have I learned from this specific situation?
other biases exist
Structural biases we should be concerned about: Commercial bias (a bias toward what attracts viewers/readers) Temporal bias (a bias toward what's new over what's old) Visual bias (a bias toward what can be seen) Bad news bias (less boring than good news) Narrative bias (a beginning, middle, and end, with "good guys" and "bad guys") Expediency bias (a bias toward what can be easily obtained) Fairness bias (seeking out "the other side" even when there's no reason to)
to win a defamation suit
a plaintiff must prove: Publication + Identification + Falsity + Defamatory meaning ("harm") + Fault Public officials must prove "actual malice" Private individuals must prove "negligence"
outcome based
Teleological, consequential, utilitarian The ethical thing to do is what will bring about the most good or minimize the most harm "The greatest good for the greatest number"
access to government info
The Constitution guarantees a free press, but does not guarantee government openness "The Constitution establishes the contest, not its resolution" (Justice Potter Stewart) Open records and open meetings laws fill this void Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (1966) Covers agency records of the executive branch of government (e.g., EPA, FBI, etc.) Several exemptions, such as: National security Privileged information (e.g., attorney-client) Trade secrets (intellectual property) States have FOI laws, too Open-meetings laws Philosophy: The people's business should be conducted openly Government in Sunshine Act (1976) opens federal agency meetings to the public (with exceptions) States and municipalities have their own laws Equal access Several courts have held that once the government chooses to provide access, it must provide equal access Can't invite only "friendly media"
Who does the First Amendment apply to?
The First Amendment - like the rest of the Bill of Rights - constraints government, not private actors Includes all branches of the federal government Includes state and local government Includes public schools and public universities Who is covered? In other words, who are "the people"? Applies to citizens, permanent residents, visa holders (in most cases) Application to those seeking entry unclear
what does this tell us?
The U.S. has an extremely broad commitment to freedom of speech Protects a lot of stuff - from the important to the unpleasant Often characterized as a "libertarian" approach to speech What purpose is served by protecting speech like on the previous slide? Essential to understand, even if you disagree
discussion of wrestling case
The case: Gary Karter, sports reporter at a major metropolitan newspaper assigned to report on local high school wrestling Scrutiny of the program due to suspicion of foul play regarding weight loss Assigned to look at the effectiveness of a new testing program Finds out the wrestlers could cheat the program The dilemma: Putting information about the loophole may lead other wrestlers to experiment, undermining the program altogether Don't include and the bad system continues The decision: Included details about the loophole, anonymizing the athletes who cheated it
utilitarianism
The ethical thing to do is what produces good consequences (or minimizes bad consequences) "The greatest good for the greatest number of people" "The ends justify the means" When facing an ethical dilemma, ask yourself, "Which alternative will produce the most good?" (or, "Which alternative will produce the least harm?")
applied ethics
The practical application of ethical principles to guide practice in specific domains (e.g., business, medicine, journalism) How to resolve new issues How to rank rival principles Articulating the standards of "best practice" in a field Resolving "ethical dilemmas"
first amendment theories in a nutshell
The purpose of the First Amendment is... ...to help us fully become ourselves ...to help us discern truth through the open exchange of ideas ...to safeguard self-governance in a democracy ...to provide a balance between stability and change ...to act as a counterweight to government
what about hate speech?
This is protected (unless there is incitement to violence) The U.S. is unlike other democracies in this regard (e.g., Holocaust denial)
access to public property
Traditional public forums: Streets, sidewalks, parks Designated (or "limited purpose") public forums: Any other government property held open for expressive activities Nonpublic forums: All remaining government property (e.g., prisons, military bases)
defamation some defenses
Truth Privilege (absolute or qualified) Fair comment and criticism Also consider statute of limitations (varies by state)
first amendment over time
Why a First Amendment to begin with? Fear of religious persecution Fear of prior restraint Inability to criticize government in colonial era ("seditious libel") Did governments practice what they preached? The Alien & Sedition Acts made it a crime to criticize the president and federal government The Supreme Court allowed the punishment of blasphemy Only since ~1920s has the Supreme Court taken the broad view of the First Amendment we recognize today
"Truth Vigilantes"
brisbanes column raises an important point the conflict between truth telling and objectivity which means we need to explore this relationship in more detail but what do we mean by objectivity, anyway?
challenges to the "ideal citizen" model
cognitive biases partisanship and polarization
partisanship
commitment to a political party, advocating their policies over their rivals the psychological connection that a voter has to a party
cognitive biases examples
confirmation bias false consensus effect affinity/ in-group bias availability cascade status quo bias third person effect
components of objectivity
factuality truth can events and statements be corroborated? is the account as complete as possible? does the account mislead by omission? does it get at the "truth behind the facts"? can we get beyond what people say happened to what actually happened? Relevance is the info in the public interest? what news values apply? how will this help the audience in some way? this relies on journalistic discernment impartiality balance/non-partisanship balance is to be proportional not equal seeking "the appropriate balance", not seeking "equal balance" (false balance) non-partisanship is to avoid taking sides in reporting journalists should not insert their opinions into their reporting neutral presentation clear separation of fact from comment the manner of presentation (ex: how described or introduced, accompanying imagery, etc)
why do people dislike those who are politically different from themselves?
group polarization: talking to only those you agree with listening to only news that affirms your opinions this makes people more radical in their beliefs which means: less able to comprehend opposing views more likely to dismiss objections negative view of outsiders
what the ideal needs to become a reality
high quality journalism, clearly also a desire to be informed on the part of citizens
journalism and the public the ideal
high quality journalism- informed, particapitory citizens -strong democracy journalism helps citizens make sense of life democracy corrects itself through informed decision making
what each party thinks of each other
in a 2016 survey, many democrats and republicans said that members of the opposing party were more likely to be closed minded, dishonest, and immoral to other Americans
revisting day 1
journalism matters journalism needs honest critics of its shortcomings and articulate advocates of its successes journalism is not a monolith understanding the "why" of journalism is essential to understanding the "how"
self-governance
key thinkers: Alexander Meiklejohn, Robert Bork Core idea: The First Amendment is fundamentally about political speech Ensures that all speech relevant to political speech can be heard Treats the First Amendment as a listener's right "What is essential is not that everybody shall speak, but that everything worth saying shall be said" (Meiklejohn)
Walkable communities
liberals want more walkable communities houses are smaller and closer together, but stores, schools, and restaurants are with in walking distance conservatives prefer more room houses are larger and further apart , but schools, stores, and restaurants are several miles away
objectivity
one of "the great confusions" of american journalism... "thoroughly misunderstood" a "mega concept" with many components
