Rebel Wilson, the Australian comedienne known for her roles in movies like “Pitch Perfect” and “Bachelorette” has spent the last few days in an Australian courtroom. Wilson has sued the parent company of Australian Magazine Woman’s Day, Bauer Media, for defamation. She claims that the magazine published false claims that she had lied about a variety of facts of her life–including her age and upbringing–and that as a result, she has lost work opportunities.

In 2015, Woman’s Day released a series of eight articles in three days about Wilson. The first, which was headlined “Just who is the REAL Rebel?” claimed that she had fabricated some of the details of her life, and according to Wilson’s lawsuit, essentially painted her as a serial or pathological liar. The articles specifically suggested she lied about her age, her real name, and her upbringing. But there doesn’t appear to be evidence that Wilson ever misrepresented her age, and she has been open that “Rebel” is not her birth name, but a nickname that she later changed her name to. The articles also claimed that she had attended an elite boarding school when she was younger, while Wilson has maintained that she was raised in a more rural area.

According to the lawsuit, the information used for the articles came from an anonymous source who claimed to have gone to school with Wilson. The writer of the articles, Shari Nementzik, saw an online comment made by the anonymous source on another Woman’s Day article, and reached out to her. Emails between Nementzik and the source revealed that the source was looking for money to talk about what she “knew.” Originally, it appears as though lawyers told Woman’s Day the story was too risky, legally speaking, to publish. But the information was still published in 2015.

Wilson claims that after the articles were released, her career took a hit. She testified in court earlier this week that she lost roles in the animated films “Trolls” and “Kung Fu Panda 3” after the articles came out, and she has struggled to find work ever since. The trial is ongoing, and Wilson is seeking unspecified damages.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rebel Wilson Sues Australian Magazine for Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

On March 2, Cecilio Pineda Brito, a nationally known crime reporter, was shot dead by two men on a motorcycle. On March 19, Ricardo Monlui Cabrera, the editorial director of the Córdoba’s Él Politico newspaper and president of his local journalism association, fell victim to similar motorcycle drive-by. Miroslava Breach Velducea, a correspondent for the national newspaper La Jornada, was shot and killed four days later. Last Friday, reporter Maximino Rodriguez Palacio was shot dead in La Paz, Mexico, marking the fourth fatal attack on a journalist in only six weeks.

The recent spate of attacks is shocking but not surprising. Human rights and freedom of the press advocates, both domestic and international, have long been calling for a response to anti-media violence in Mexico.

Freedom House’s 2016 Freedom of the Press Index named Mexico “one of the world’s most dangerous places for journalists and media workers,” citing numerous violent attacks in 2015. Conditions have only been intensifying.

According to a report by Article 19–a non-profit devoted to protecting freedom of expression–suppressive and/or violent attacks on journalists have been on the rise since 2010. The report found 426 acts of aggression against journalists and 11 homicides in 2016. While 2016 was the bloodiest year for journalists under President Enrique Peña Nieto and the worst since 2000, 2017 may surpass it.

Despite these statistics, Peña Nieto’s government seems unconcerned with attacks on journalists. Article 19 reports that the Mexican Special Prosecutor’s Office on Crimes Against Freedom of Expression–known in Mexico as FEADLE, its Spanish acronym–only investigated 118 cases of the 426 acts of aggression against journalists and that 99.75 percent of attacks go unresolved.

Although criminal organizations often take most of the blame for any kind of violence in Mexico, there is a slew of evidence implicating the government in the anti-media violence. In 2016, “State agents” supposedly perpetrated 53 percent of the 426 acts of aggression identified by Article 19–criminal organizations are believed to have perpetrated 4 percent of the attacks.

Last month, Gilberto Israel Navarro Basaldúa, a journalist from the city of Guanajuato, reported that an employee of the municipal government’s economic council had swerved his car and hit Navarro off his motorcycle. Although employees of state and municipal governments are believed to have carried out the majority acts of aggression, Article 19 found 56 examples in which federal officials allegedly attacked the press.

It is clear that the Mexican government is unwilling to protect its media. Peña Nieto has blamed local governments for obstructing investigations but Article 19 found that his government had consistently refused to use its authority to take control of the process. The fact that state workers from all levels of government are believed to be responsible for the majority of acts of aggression against the media perhaps explains why the government is unwilling to investigate and prosecute anti-media crimes.

Historically victimized by criminal organizations and now increasingly victimized by government officials, the Mexican journalists have no place to turn. Freedom of the press has long been under threat in Mexico, but it appears the government is intent on undermining the expressive freedom in its entirety.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Responsible for Anti-Media Violence in Mexico? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week our best stories included high school journalists kicking some butt, the relationship between President Donald Trump and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and fake butter on Dunkin’s bagels. ICYMI, check out our top stories!

Looking to Avoid Fake News? Check Out These High School Journalists

High school journalists across the country are proof that you’re never too young to start holding people accountable.

Students at Pittsburg High School in Pittsburg, Kansas learned this lesson after their investigation into a newly-hired administrator led to her resignation. Although their incoming principal, Amy Robertson, claimed to have earned degrees from Corllins University, some background research by the reporters for the school’s paper found that this was not an accredited institution.

Will Trump Mention India’s Human Rights Abuses in His Meeting with Narendra Modi?

On March 3, the State Department released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016, and its pointed critique of India’s human rights record has raised some eyebrows. The report is particularly critical of India’s history of state violence and the country’s criminal justice system in general. While one might expect the State Department’s findings to influence talks during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s impending visit to Washington, the matter will likely be ignored.

Good News for Bagel Lovers: Dunkin’ Donuts Settles Fake Butter Lawsuit

Jan Polanik ordered bagels with butter at a Dunkin’ Donuts in Massachusetts and couldn’t believe it wasn’t actually butter. So in 2013, he sued two Dunkin’ franchise groups, which run more than 20 restaurants in Eastern and Central Massachusetts, claiming to represent all customers who “ordered a baked product, such as a bagel, with butter, but instead received margarine or butter substitute between June 24, 2012, and June 24, 2016.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

High school journalists across the country are proof that you’re never too young to start holding people accountable.

Students at Pittsburg High School in Pittsburg, Kansas learned this lesson after their investigation into a newly-hired administrator led to her resignation. Although their incoming principal, Amy Robertson, claimed to have earned degrees from Corllins University, some background research by the reporters for the school’s paper found that this was not an accredited institution.

Last Friday, the students published an article in their newspaper, The Booster Redux, detailing how Robertson’s statements about her qualifications did not add up. On Tuesday, she officially stepped down.

Their investigative work comes at a time when journalists are fact-checking more aggressively than ever, particularly under President Donald Trump, who was explicitly called out by the New York Times for his lies—a term that many news organizations don’t use lightly.

Although scoops about Trump’s tax returns or leaked tapes in which he made derogatory remarks about women didn’t hurt his success during the election, the outcome of The Booster Redux’s work provides some hope that thorough reporting about people in power can cause direct change.

Luckily, Pittsburg students aren’t alone. In New York, staff at The Classic, the student newspaper for Townsend Harris High School in Queens, have been shedding light on the troublesome reputation of their interim principal, Rosemarie Jahoda. Jahoda was hit with complaints for unnecessarily tightening regulations and mishandling a case of discrimination against a Muslim student.

Like students at The Booster Redux, writers for The Classic faced resistance from their subject, who avoided answering many questions. An official from the New York City Department of Education, which appointed Jahoda, even referred to the publication as “fake news.” If that sounds familiar, it’s probably because Trump labeled CNN (and other outlets) the same thing at a press conference earlier this year when he refused to take their questions.

Though these aspiring reporters may be getting interested in the field at a time when the media is facing a lot of hostility, at least they’re being prepared to push back against it as early as possible.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking to Avoid Fake News? Check Out These High School Journalists appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Steve Bannon Removed From the National Security Council

One of President Trump’s closest advisers, former Breitbart News chairman Steve Bannon, was removed from his seat on the National Security Council yesterday. The new national security adviser Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, who replaced Michael Flynn, reportedly orchestrated the move. According to a White House source, Bannon was so upset that he threatened to resign altogether, but publicly, his spokespeople said that it was all part of the natural evolution of his role. The White House claims that Bannon was put on the council to keep an eye on Flynn, and now that Flynn is gone, Bannon has other priorities.

HOWEVER, Bannon’s removal from National Security Council doesn’t indicate any erosion of his influence in White House, the official told me. https://t.co/994bUUZ0Sf

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) April 5, 2017

But critics of Bannon say it was a very bad idea to put him on the NSC in the first place. Now, there are rumors that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, played an important role in Bannon’s removal. It’s pretty safe to say that the drama in the White House is far from over.

Sen Cardin on Bannon being off the NSC: “If that is true..I’d be very pleased…my hope is that he has no role in government at all.”

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) April 5, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A Maryland man, John Rayne Rivello, was just arrested and charged with cyberstalking with intent to kill or cause bodily harm. Rivello sent a bright, flashing tweet to an epileptic journalist, Kurt Eichenwald, in December. The tweet sparked a seizure for Eichenwald, as Rivello allegedly intended, given that the tweet also contained the message: “you deserve a seizure for your posts.” It is believed to be one of the first cases in which someone caused actual physical harm via a tweet.

Eichenwald is a senior editor at Newsweek and a contributing editor for Vanity Fair. He’s also written for the New York Times and POLITICO, as well as the book “The Informant” which inspired the Matt Damon movie of the same name. He has spoken publicly about his epilepsy in the past. Eichenwald, as well as some of the publications he works for, have been highly critical of President Donald Trump. Rivello is reportedly a Trump supporter who disagreed with Eichenwald’s coverage. Other evidence that led to Rivello’s arrest include messages about his intention to harm Eichenwald sent in private messages from his account.

Rivello’s attack on Eichenwald actually inspired copycat trolls. According to Eichenwald, he’s received about 40 similar gifs, almost certainly aiming to also spark an epileptic seizure.

More than 40 ppl sent strobes once they found out they could trigger seizures. Details of their cases are with the FBI. Stop sending them.

— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) March 17, 2017

Usually charges of cyberstalking stem from online bullying or attacks, which can lead to emotional damage or increased suicide risk–but this is one of the first cases that involves actual physical harm. It also was uniquely tailored. Vivek Krishnamurthy, an assistant director at the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School, told the New York Times:

This is an interesting and unique case in that there are lots of online attacks that can have physical consequences, such as an attack on an electrical grid or the control of air traffic control. But this is distinguishable because it is a targeted physical attack that was personal, using a plain-Jane tool.

Threats through Twitter feel ubiquitous for political commentators who operate on the internet, particular Twitter. From general harassment and threats to more extreme measures like doxxing, sometimes law enforcement officials either refuse to or have a hard time holding offenders accountable. But Eichenwald’s case shows that online harassment isn’t “just words”–it can be deadly serious.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Arrested and Charged After Targeting Epileptic Journalist with Flashing Tweet appeared first on Law Street.

These days, fake news is everywhere. After all, 2016 was marked by “post-truth” becoming the word of the year and the made-up news stories that made their way around the internet. Some of the stories that sprung up last year were so bizarre it is incredible anyone would believe them, but fake news is now being blamed for things like Donald Trump’s victory. Back in March 2015, a group of 11 European diplomats, bureaucrats, and former journalists based in Brussels started investigating the origins of fake news stories under the name East StratCom. In the 16 months since, the group has debunked about 2,500 stories.

The European Union has a new unit to combat Russian propaganda, an 11-member team called East Stratcom. https://t.co/TtsfAd8bJZ

— Steven Lee Myers (@stevenleemyers) February 21, 2017

Incorrect information has always been easily spread. But last year was different, given the controversial U.S. election, and how quickly fake stories could spread via social media, especially Facebook, which came under fire for trending fake articles in the fall. The problem was also spurred on by Google, where stories that went viral would pop up toward the top of searches because of the traffic they had gained. Purveyors of fake news would also try to make their websites look like real news sites, and place their fake stories next to genuine ones.

The European Council created East StratCom specifically “to address Russia’s ongoing disinformation campaigns.” Most of the team members know Russian and they work full time scanning the web for fake stories. They try to debunk stories in real time on social media, send out newsletters and inform their followers about fake news. They have over 14,000 followers on both Facebook and Twitter. But they say it is impossible to cover as much as they would want to.

Conspiracies: the bread & butter of pro-Kremlin disinformation. Don’t be deceived & read #DisinfoReview: https://t.co/7tkJBWaRaR pic.twitter.com/14mAFDuFFR

— EU Mythbusters (@EUvsDisinfo) February 17, 2017

This year, France, Germany, and the Netherlands all will hold elections and many people are worried that outside efforts will succeed in influencing the outcomes, like it seems they did in the U.S. The Russian goal is believed to be to undermine the European Union and gain more control in the region. And several of the team members have received death threats, with one of them being accused twice on Russian TV of being a spy.

President Donald Trump has made a point out of calling mainstream media “fake news” but has also spread incorrect information himself. In a speech at a Florida rally last weekend, Trump mentioned something that allegedly happened in Sweden when talking about immigrants and crime, implying that there had been some sort of terror attack. He later explained on Twitter that he was referring to something he’d seen on Fox News, and once again attacked Sweden and the “fake news media.”

Give the public a break – The FAKE NEWS media is trying to say that large scale immigration in Sweden is working out just beautifully. NOT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2017

This tendency to quote false information as if it were real is an actual danger to democracy, says British politician Damian Collins who is examining the phenomenon. “There are concerns shared by many governments that fake news could become weaponized,” he said. “The spread of this type of material could eventually undermine our democratic institutions.”

And while East Stratcom works as hard as possible to debunk fake news stories, the speed of information sharing on social media has many experts doubting whether the efforts will have any effect. And given the anonymity of the internet, it is virtually impossible to find the perpetrators.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A European Task Force is Battling Fake News, One Story at a Time appeared first on Law Street.

Freedom of speech is at an all-time low worldwide, according to an annual report from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). As of December 1, 2016, there are 259 journalists imprisoned internationally, with Turkey accounting for nearly a third of the global total–making 2016 the worst year for journalists since the watchdog group began in 1990.

In its annual census, CPJ named Turkey as the most hostile nation against free press, with at least 81 imprisoned journalists facing anti-state charges–the highest number in any one country at any one time. Ranked 151^st out of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index, unprecedented levels of suppression and intimidation tactics are troubling signs of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s growing authoritarianism.

According to the CPJ, the arrests have accelerated due to an ongoing crackdown on media in Turkey following a failed coup d’état in July. By government decree, Erdoğan has bypassed Turkey’s judicial system to lawfully prosecute independent media companies for even remotely criticizing the establishment. These mandates have been justified by his administration as security measures against Kurdish insurgents or sympathizers of Fethullah Gülen, the self-exiled religious cleric living in rural Pennsylvania who is accused of masterminding the unsuccessful junta this past summer.

Reporters Without Borders is another organization keeping an eye on Erdoğan’s political developments. In November, the group condemned the arrests of ten employees at the Cumhuriyet opposition newspaper. Government forces raided the publication on November 5 for its perceived connections to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Gülen movement–both of which are outlawed in Turkey. The opposition newspaper was accused of “undermining national unity” and spreading propaganda for these alleged terrorist organizations.

Another anti-terrorism investigation involved the pro-Kurdish newspaper Özgür Gündem, whose print version has a circulation of roughly 7,500. Police stormed the paper’s offices and arrested 24 people after ruling that the paper acted as the “de facto news outlet” for Kurdish rebels. TurkSat, Turkey’s sole communications satellite operator, also removed more than a dozen independent TV and radio stations from its lineup due to allegations of “separatism and subversion.”

“The Turkish government’s decision to silence still more media outlets shows its growing intolerance of open political debate and dissent of any kind,” said Robert Herman, CPJ’s vice president of international programs. “The government this time targeted stations broadcasting in Kurdish and showed its disregard for the principles of democracy.”

This past year CPJ Europe and Central Asia Program Coordinator Nina Ognianova testified to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee against Turkey’s media purge. Ognianova told the committee that Turkish authorities have detained more than 100 journalists, closed more than 100 media outlets, censored approximately 30 online news sources, and retracted more than 600 press credentials, since the failed coup attempt on July 15. Passports have also been reported as confiscated, including those belonging to family members of prominent critics of Erdoğan’s establishment. Such hostility is motivating many to go into exile or flee the country.

After Turkey, the countries with next highest numbers of jailed journalists are China and Egypt. China has frequently been named the world’s worst jailer of journalists in previous years, making the top spot 18 times to be exact. A total of 38 journalists were jailed in the country this year, due in large part to a crackdown on coverage of human rights abuses. As for Egypt, 25 were detained for reporting from prohibited areas in the country.

CPJ monitors nations around the world, paying close attention to journalists in government custody. Those held by non-state actors are not included in the list. Arrest statistics are incorporated into the report after the CPJ has verified that individuals were jailed for charges relating to their work.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Turkey Jailed Record Number of Journalists in 2016, CPJ Says appeared first on Law Street.

When Canadian journalist Ed Ou headed to North Dakota recently to cover the pipeline protests at Standing Rock, he didn’t expect the drama to start as soon as he reached the U.S. border. But border officials decided to detain him for over six hours and confiscate his cellphones, something that is uncomfortable for anyone, but critical for a journalist. He compared having the contents of his phones scrutinized with a doctor giving up confidential information about his patients. If Ou’s sources who have given information on the condition of anonymity are revealed, their lives could potentially be in danger.

The U.S. border agent officers asked Ou to tell them how and why he had traveled to every single country he has visited for the past five years, and if he had seen anyone die. Ou has spent 10 years covering the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia, which could explain the unusual questions. The agents asked to see his phones to make sure he was “not posing next to any dead bodies.” When he refused, explaining that he is a journalist and needed to protect his sources, they simply took them anyway. When he got the phones back later, it looked as if the SIM cards had been tampered with. Agents also photocopied pages from his personal diary. In the end, Ou was denied entry into the U.S. and put on a plane back to Canada, with no other explanation than that his name matched that of “a person of interest.” One officer said that his refusal to cooperate with the phones “did not help.”

The United States Customs and Border Protection declined to comment on the event. But in a statement it said, “Keeping America safe and enforcing our nation’s laws in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully examine all materials entering the U.S.” If the authorities think that that means looking into the contacts of a well-published journalist and then refusing him entry with no valid reason, that is a huge problem for freedom of the press in the U.S.

The incident has been criticized by advocates for press freedom as well as by other journalists.

Journalists don’t get much braver or more talented than Ed Ou. What happened to him at the US border is shameful. https://t.co/4jCjUUqMaw

— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) December 2, 2016

The way journalists are being treated at the US borders is truly alarming. This happened to photographer Ed Ou https://t.co/ZZi1bNNmB8

— Liz Sly (@LizSly) November 30, 2016

Does the United States believe in freedom of speech? Apparently not @CustomsBorder, which bars entry to accomplished photographer @EdOuphoto

— Neil MacFarquhar (@NeilMacFarquhar) November 30, 2016

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, wrote a letter to Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security, signed by attorney Hugh Handeyside, in which it called the detention and treatment “harassing and exceptionally intrusive.” It said that border agents should have realized that Ou was a renowned journalist, who had often traveled to the U.S. as he has well-established professional connections with major news outlets such as Reuters, the Associated Press and the New York Times. The letter stated:

We believe that C.B.P. took advantage of Mr. Ou’s application for admission to engage in an opportunistic fishing expedition for sensitive and confidential information that Mr. Ou had gathered through his news-gathering activities in Turkey, Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere.

Ou was on his way to cover the Standing Rock protests on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which the agents were apparently aware of. But individual border officials should not have the power to affect what ends up in the media. The director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, Trevor Timm, said that the practice of forcing journalists who have worked in the Middle East to give up their confidential sources just to get into a country puts the U.S. in a very bad light. “If this is requisite for journalists who are not U.S. citizens to enter the U.S., that is an enormous violation of press freedom,” he said.

An important reminder to #journalists that your #data is not safe at the US Border https://t.co/oqEbH8Xz6q @ACLU @edouphoto pic.twitter.com/jvQiO113tN

— MuckRock (@MuckRock) December 1, 2016

For all intents and purposes, the Fourth Amendment does not apply when you’re at the border. Walking on the street, a police officer likely can’t go up to you and randomly search you without a warrant or arrest order. But in an airport or at a border control stop, agents can search you and your electronic devices without reason or permission from a judge. This is because of a loophole in the law that mentions bags and personal property, but was written in a time before most people had their entire private lives stored in a cellphone. A policy from 2009 says that the owner of a digital device needs to be present when agents perform a search, but that rule can be interpreted very loosely. According to the policy, agents can make copies of data, but they need to be erased within a week unless a crime is suspected or there is a probable cause to keep the data.

This incident raises a deeper question, about press freedom and Freedom of Speech in the U.S., as well as what the role of the CBP should be. As Hugh Handeyside from the ACLU said, “conditioning foreign journalists’ admission to the United States on their willingness to agree to intrusive searches encourages similarly abusive treatment of American journalists in other countries.” To treat journalists like this at borders will discourage them from reporting on important events, and stem the flow of information.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Journalist Ed Ou Detained and Denied Entry to the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

American distrust of the media has reached an all-time high. Maybe…after all, I’m writing this while sipping from a Hillary Clinton coffee mug, wearing a Donald Trump shirt, and cackling maliciously, so can you really trust me? But all jokes aside, Americans do trust the media less than they have in recent years–only 32 percent of Americans say that they trust the media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly,” according to a new Gallup poll.

That’s the lowest level of trust in the media since Gallup began asking the question in 1972, and this year was marked by an 8 percent drop–a pretty sharp one given that the percentage has been hovering at low-mid 40s since 2008. But splitting up that 32 percent by party lines gives us an even clearer picture into who doesn’t like the media right now–conservatives.

While 51 percent of Democrats say they trust the media, Independents are at 30 percent. But only 14 percent of Republicans trust the media. That sounds low, and it is, but even more shocking is how large of a drop that represents. Last year, 32 percent of Republicans trusted the media, meaning we saw an 18 percent drop in the course of a year.

So…what changed this year? While conservative perception of the media has long been low–“lamestream media” entered our lexicon sometime in the mid-2000s–this drop is too sharp to just be attributed to normal trends. Instead, it seems like Donald Trump, and his serious anti-media rhetoric may be to blame.

He has had a very aggressive stance against the media, from yanking the Washington Post’s press pass to actually saying that he’s running against the media in mid-August. At a rally in Connecticut, Trump stated: “I’m not running against Crooked Hillary. I’m running against the crooked media. That’s what I’m running against.”

Bloomberg compiled a pretty intensive and deep look at Trump’s attacks on the media via Twitter, showing that he did attack the media more than Clinton from June 2015-August 2016. Andre Tartar stated:

Searching Trump’s roughly 5,000 tweets and retweets since his June 2015 launch for mentions of 25 major media organizations (listed below), Bloomberg Politics found nearly 1,000 examples through Friday morning. Of those, 256 messages were critical, and together they garnered more than 875,000 retweets and 2.4 million likes. Over the same period, Trump sent just 140 tweets attacking Clinton. Those got more than 1.2 million retweets and more than 3.3 million likes.

The media is at an interesting crossroads right now–there’s a lot of questions that both journalists and the American public are now being required to confront on a regular basis. How much should opinion writing be weighted? How awful really is clickbait? How many cat gifs are too many cat gifs?

Spoiler: all cat gifs are relevant. via GIPHY

Media distrust is at an all time high. But is it deserved, or is it another by-product of what is by all accounts a totally insane election year?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Don’t You Like Us?: Media Distrust Hits All Time High, Thanks Trump appeared first on Law Street.

When Anderson Cooper came to speak at George Washington University, he had to adjust the timing of the event. Due to a change in scheduling, the event previously scheduled for the morning was shifted to the evening. What was the early morning emergency that caused Mr. Cooper to change his plans? An interview with Melania Trump.

When interviewer Frank Sesno, the Dean of GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs and former CNN correspondent, asked about Cooper’s time with Mrs. Trump, Cooper told the audience that she was “cautious” and “lovely,” but that the interview would certainly not be a news-making revelation. At the event, Sesno’s questions for Cooper discussed the media’s role in the presidential election, asked him to reflect on some video clips, and later turned to his personal life.

Image courtesy of Sean Simon for Law Street Media

As for CNN’s coverage of the presidential elections, Cooper defended the media’s role in the primaries several times during the event, saying that Trump is hyper-aware of the media and that he is the only candidate willing to be interviewed so often. When criticized for giving Trump excessive airtime on CNN, Cooper argued that a presidential run as unorthodox as Trump’s is worthy of attention—that it points to a very real wave of anger and distrust in the American public.

Pushed further on the issue of the media’s role in elections, he argued that much of the onus is on the viewers. Today we have unprecedented access to information through the internet, and each person has the ability to become educated on a topic in a matter of minutes. He could make an hour long documentary on healthcare in America, but it’s not worth the time and effort if no one watches.

Then came time to review some video from Cooper’s career at CNN. Sesno showed some clips to Cooper and the audience, asking for more background on Cooper’s decisions as an anchor and interviewer. One clip was an interview with Senator Mary Landrieu in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, in which he hears platitudes from the senator. Cooper expresses the anguish of the people of New Orleans, forcing her to face the horror of the natural disaster. After watching the clip Cooper elaborated on his thought process, adding that he had seen a family left dead in their flooded home just the day before his interview, an image that haunted him as he spoke with the Senator.

When asking about his interactions with the presidential candidates, Sesno presented a clip that showed one of Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings—a sort of tone-deafness. The video, taken from the February 3 Democratic Town Hall, shows Hillary not-so-deftly addressing her high-priced speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms. Sesno highlighted Cooper’s decision to demand a real answer for the large fees, rather than being content with a stock response.

At the end of the event, Cooper began talking about his personal life, giving the audience a look at a side of him rarely revealed on CNN. Cooper’s older brother committed suicide at the age of 23, and his father died when he was 10 years old. He told the audience that he felt so much grief and pain that he needed to find a surrounding that reflected that feeling in order to make sense of it. That was why, after graduating from Yale, Cooper took a camera and some friends to travel to the most war-torn parts of the world. He remembers sleeping on a roof in Somalia, exploring with very little money while trying to find connection in distant and foreign cultures.

The event Cooper spoke at was sponsored by Allied in Pride, a student organization at George Washington University dedicated to LGBTQ issues, and so Cooper also opened up about his identity as well. Although he was not publicly “out” for many years, he told the audience that he has always been openly gay in his professional life, and in no uncertain terms that being gay is one of the greatest blessings of his life.

Being the great-great-great-grandson of railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, Cooper has had a cushy and privileged upbringing. Without also being gay, Cooper thinks he may not have been aware of his privilege, and the discrimination that others go through daily. His sexual orientation gave him more perspective on life, leading him to be more of an observer than an active participant. “Being gay has taught me empathy, and empathy has made me a better reporter,” he said.

Cooper ended his talk by answering questions from the audience. He took the opportunity to sum up his own reporting modus operandi. He wants to confront his interviewee with the facts, rather than his opinion. He’s not interested in voicing how he feels, but rather to get an understanding of how the other person operates, and to understand the essence of their positions.

Cooper warned that fame can be “gangrenous” and told the audience that if you become obsessed with your own image, you lose integrity as a journalist. At an event was co-hosted by GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs, that warning should be well-heeded by aspiring journalists.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anderson Cooper Gets Personal During Talk at GW appeared first on Law Street.

The University of Missouri assistant professor who sparked nationwide controversy for yelling at a student reporter is in the spotlight and raising ethical questions yet again.

Assistant communications professor Melissa Click can be seen on a recently released Columbia Police Department video cursing at a cop who is attempting to clear a road for cars during the Mizzou homecoming parade in October. The footage was taken with two cops’ body cameras.

The footage, first published by the Columbia Missourian, shows Click as a part of a group of student demonstrators who were linked arms blocking the road. The cop can be seen trying to usher the group off of the road and onto the sidewalk in order to allow the parade to continue.

In November, Click, a communications teacher, was captured on video calling for a student journalist to be ejected from a protest site on campus. She requested “some muscle” to help her kick the student out. This incident caused many to call for her dismissal from the university.

So why are her actions especially troublesome and still being talked about now?

Well, what is increasingly frustrating while watching the 12-minute video from November is that the protest as a whole was completely overshadowed by the actions of the professor and the students that she didn’t wish to correct. Instead of a commendable peaceful protest being documented and praised, that message was lost in the actions of few.

Click, while not the center of the entire video, played a vital role in the fact that she did not aid the student reporters by allowing them to do their job. She of all people should have been able to understand their rights just as she understood the rights of the protesters.

All of a sudden the possible headline of “Peaceful Activists Protest for Black Lives Matter Movement,” turned into “Professor Needs Muscle to Block Student Journalists.” And that is really a shame.

The lack of trust of the media is understandable, but should you really shut out someone for trying to accurately document your protest just because they are a journalist? Is it worth the negative backlash from the country just to push a student reporter around whose ‘agenda’ is just to take photos from the event? Not only did the actions of those shown in the video hinder their cause, but it shed such a poor light on the university and the protesters, when it didn’t have to.

What is even more of a shame is the lack of understanding of basic rights. Students were screaming that the photographer, Tim Tai, had to back up and could not legally be there and photograph the event. He was surrounded and barricaded from what was going on and at times pushed by protesters. The right that the students were citing as to why they should be left alone to protest is the same right that allows the journalists to be there documenting what is going on. In addition, they were in public space–which grants the photographer and videographer the right to document freely.

What strikes me most are the ethical dilemmas that come with this debate. As a teacher who is up for tenure, a heavily sought-after academic position, Click will surely be hearing about these two incidents during her deliberations. I hope the board members ask themselves, can she be an effective communications professor if she has gotten herself into these communications conundrums? How can she teach a topic that she herself doesn’t seem to have mastered in her practice? It is certainly hard to support her in her communications endeavors when she curses at cops and calls for the obstruction of the media from a protest on public property.

Check out the November incident in full below (I highly recommend watching the entire video):

And check out the video of the October incident below:

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mizzou Teacher Melissa Click Seen Cursing at Cops, Raises Ethical Concerns Again appeared first on Law Street.

Here in the United States it’s easy to take the concept of Freedom of the Press for granted. The idea that someone would be jailed for the pieces he writes is almost unthinkable to us. Whether or not that’s actually the reality is a different matter–concerns over whistleblowers and journalists giving up their sources have increased in recent years–the concept of Freedom of Press still dominates American thought when it comes to journalistic rights. But it’s just as easy to forget that those principles don’t hold universal–in many parts of the world, imprisoning journalists for the simple facts of what they write is common practice. There are currently 221 journalists in prison worldwide. In 2014, 67 were killed, and just since the beginning of 2015, an additional 17 have been killed. That’s a problem, and it prompts the question: what can be done?

There are currently 31 nations that have at least one journalist in prison. The worst offenders are China, Iran, and Eritrea, at 44, 30, and 23, respectively. Other nations with a significant number of journalists in prison include Myanmar at ten, Egypt and Syria at 12 each, Vietnam at 16, and Ethiopia at 17.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)–the organization that conducted the research–more than half of the imprisoned journalists work on a web platform; the majority of the rest work in print. CPJ also explains why the journalists are imprisoned:the majority were accused of being “antistate,” many were arrested on “retaliatory charges,” a few were charged with false news or defamation, and some were arrested for unknown or undisclosed reasons.

In response to these statistics, students at the University of Maryland came up with a project called “Press Uncuffed” to attempt to bring attention to the plight of journalists imprisoned around the world, as well as to provide support to CPJ and support its mission to free these journalists. Here’s a video that outlines the students’ motivations.

The group, led by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dana Priest, will manufacture and sell Lucite bracelets, each of which will be engraved with the name of one of the imprisoned journalists; they are currently in the beginning stages of an indiegogo campaign to make that a reality. They aim to sell these bracelets on May 3, which is “World Press Freedom Day.” The bracelets are made of a see-through material to symbolize the need for transparency in global journalism.

The journalists being highlighted by Press Uncuffed include Reyoot Alemu, who has been imprisoned in Ethiopia on anti-state charges for nearly four years, accused of terrorism. She had written for an independent publication called Feteh, and was highly critical of the government.

There’s also Mahmoud Abou Zeid, nicknamed “Shawkan,” who is in prison in Egypt. He’s a freelance photographer who took pictures after Morsi was ousted. He was accused of many things, including weapons possession and murder, but up to this point it doesn’t appear that official charges were ever filed against him.

Also on the list is Yusuf Ruzimuradov of Uzbekistan. He’s been in prison for more than 16 years after being convicted of being “anti-state” in 1999. He’s one of the longest-imprisoned journalists in the world.

The aim of the Press Uncuffed movement is to bring attention to the plight of those brave journalists who aren’t as fortunate as we are to live in a nation where the press can be considered “free.” Various media companies and other members of the industry, such as HBO and the Knight Foundation, have lent their support. As Press Uncuffed described part of its aim:

We believe the link between information and a free and equitable society is vital and sometimes not fully understood. We hope Press Uncuffed humanizes the people who are risking their lives to give us information and creates a greater appreciation for the role of a free press.

It’s certainly a step in the right direction. While creating this kind of fundraiser won’t necessarily lead to immediate results, it will certainly increase awareness and accountability for  nations that decide to imprison journalists.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UMD Students’ Press Uncuffed Project Aims to Free Imprisoned Journalists appeared first on Law Street.

The media world is still reeling from Brian Williams’ lies–or severe misremembering, at best–about his helicopter being shot down by Iraqi forces 12 years ago. But round two with Bill O’Reilly has turned out a bit differently. It’s become clear that the Fox News host wasn’t in the thick of the war zone while covering the 1982 Falklands conflict as he’s boasted several times. In fact, he was over a thousand miles away from the heart of the action, sources told Mother Jones.

And O’Reilly, whose criticism of Williams lacked his usual bluster, hasn’t taken this sitting down.

After Mother Jones published its skepticism of O’Reilly’s representation as a “combat-hardened reporter,” O’Reilly immediately hit back, calling the reporters lying “left-wing” “guttersnipes.” When New York Times reporters questioned him soon after, he outright threatened them.

“I am coming after you with everything I have,” O’Reilly told The New York Times over the phone. “You can take it as a threat.”

For years, O’Reilly has backed up his reporting to viewers, readers, and other journalists with claims of reporting for CBS in active war zones in Argentina’s Falkland Islands, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. He particularly emphasized surviving combat situations and rescuing his photographer during the U.K.’s war with Argentina.

“I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete,” O’Reilly said in 2013. “And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I’m looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important.”

But reporters and producers from CBS News told Mother Jones that no American correspondent reached the Falklands. Instead, they said, O’Reilly was in Buenos Aires, over a thousand miles from combat. The riots in Buenos Aires were hardly the deadly affair O’Reilly depicted.

“It wasn’t a combat situation by any sense of the word that I know,” retired CBS correspondent told CNN. O’Reilly, he said, “is trying to build it up into a more frightening and deadly situation than it was.”

So far seven former colleagues from CBS have spoken out against O’Reilly’s exaggerated version of events and claims that “many people were killed” in the riots. Newspaper archives from Argentina at the time don’t report any fatalities in Buenos Aires either, according to the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple.

What’s more, former colleagues doubt his photographer was even injured. “Nobody remembers this happening. If somebody got hurt, we all would have known,” a CBS news cameraman who was in Buenos Aires then told CNN.

After investigations into Brian Williams’ work began, NBC suspended its celebrity anchor without pay for six months. But even as allegations of further fabrication arise–O’Reilly may have lied about hearing the suicide of someone involved in President Kennedy’s assassintion–Fox News has stood by its host and his version of events.

The kicker in all this? O’Reilly’s ratings have only risen, giving him his biggest audience since the Ferguson verdict came out.

Aysha Khan

Aysha Khan studies multi-platform journalism and Middle Eastern affairs at the University of Maryland. Contact Aysha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As More Questionable Reports Emerge, Bill O’Reilly’s Ratings Increase appeared first on Law Street.

They say “Art is what you can get away with,” but how does one know when they’ve crossed the line? That was the essential question at the recent panel discussion “After Charlie: What’s next for art, satire, and censorship?” The event, co-hosted by the French Institute Alliance Française (FIAF) and PEN American Center and held at FIAF’s Florence Gould Hall in New York, was mediated by WNYC’s Leonard Lopate and featured four political cartoonists and journalists: Art Spiegelman, Molly Crabapple, Emmanuel “Manu” Letouzé, and Françoise Mouly.

I went in thinking that it was going to be a depressing evening as I listened to the panelists rehash the horrible events that happened in Paris last month, and more recently in Copenhagen, but they turned out to be a very insightful yet comical group of people. (They are cartoonists after all!)

The event was not meant to focus on the tragedy but rather on the future of art and journalism. The reason behind terrorist attacks like the one on Charlie Hebdo is to attempt to reshape what journalists write. Especially after these kinds of incidents, satirical journalists may feel pressure from two sources of censorship: censorship under the law and a form of self-censorship in which they may subconsciously feel inclined to censor their work to protect others’ feelings.

This doesn’t appear to be an issue for the particular panelists who spoke here. Spiegelman, who has drawn a number of covers for the New Yorker, even went so far as to say that political correctness is one of his pet peeves. The main inspiration behind the Taliban attack on Charlie Hebdo was the publication’s tendency to depict the Muslim prophet, Mohammed. “I would have no interest in drawing the prophet unless someone told me I couldn’t,” explained Spiegelman.

Courtesy of PEN American Center via Flickr.

Crabapple, my personal favorite speaker of the night, claimed art is different from written journalism in that it “can be yanked out of context” and it only “irritates assholes.” At the same time, she said that “context is over for media,” due to the fact that most of it is now consumed online via social media. However, that certainly does not stop her from stirring controversy–it even makes it better for her. One of the most controversial comics she ever made–she said she even got death threats as a result of it–was one that she drew of Guantanamo Bay. She wasn’t allowed to draw the faces of anyone who works there, so she substituted the guards’ faces with smiley faces. On one side of the fence some of them are drinking and fooling around, while on the other side some are force-feeding a prisoner. The prisoner, however, is depicted with a normal face, as opposed a smiley face. Above she writes, “It Don’t Gitmo Better Than This.” She described Guantanamo Bay as “one of the most censored places in the world” and finds it amusing that people were so upset that she “was misrepresenting the wonderful place that is Guantanamo Bay.”

There’s a distinct difference, however, between the way that French and American cultures react to controversial comics like these. Editor and art director of the the New Yorker, Mouly, could attest to that explaining that in U.S. there’s a sort of “fear of the cartoonist,” while cartoons in France are a more ubiquitous form of journalism. Also the U.S. has a different “tradition of the free press” in that secularism is so ingrained into our politics. For example, the French are unable to understand why it’s so important what religion a politician is or whether or not he’s had an affair. Mouly’s husband Spiegelman agreed, claiming that “Steven Colbert and John Stewart are the closest thing the U.S. has to cartoonists.” 

French-born Manu attested to experiencing such a cultural divide himself, claiming that American publications have been “surprised that I would use a cartoon for such a serious [news] publication.” Manu probably had the most first-hand experience with this as not only had he met some of the cartoonists at Charlie, but also grew up dreaming of drawing for the publication. In fact, after the attacks he made a tribute cartoon that read “They killed my idols.”

My favorite part of the night was the panel’s analysis of various New Yorker covers from over the years, many of which were drawn by Spiegelman. The New Yorker’s covers are the most analogous to the work in Charlie Hebdo of all American cartoons. And now with the internet, their impact on history has become even more apparent. Remember the cover with Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie from June 2013 when gay marriage was passed in New York? What about the satirical covers of President Obama during his 2008 campaign run? While not nearly as subversive, New Yorker covers are an ingrained part of American history just as Charlie‘s are for French culture.

One Charlie cover however, reminded me of a recent cover of Paper magazine featuring a certain pop culture celebrity. The 1978 cover features “the ass of a Jewish woman,” as the headline roughly translates. And even though it’s only a drawing, Charlie seems to take it a step further than Kim K by including pubic hair at the crotch.

Courtesy of PEN American Center via Flickr.

As Spiegelman perfectly summed it up: “Cartoons are really primitive language.” In a lot ways you can get away with being more controversial with a drawing than with words or even photographs. While words can be taken out of context too, art definitely leaves more to the reader’s imagination. So in a way, “Je suis Charlie” makes sense as we as viewers contribute just as much to the publication as its creators.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Am Charlie, and So Are You: How Terrorism Affects Censorship appeared first on Law Street.

Online journalism has opened the door for non-traditional journalists to enter the industry. However, as more and more people trickle into the field, the ethical concerns inherent in journalism evolve as well. Digital media ethics of all kinds exist, they serve to streamline the practices of all sorts of online journalism: blogging, writing, photojournalism, and even social media journalism. Many discussions circle around how online journalists, and those with an audience equal to or even surpassing print journalists, should research, publish, and interact with the text. Read on to learn about how the internet is changing the field of journalism, the basics of journalistic ethics, and what new questions are arising for online journalists.

Changes in the Water

Journalism is transforming at an alarming rate–paper sales of newspapers and magazines are down, and online consumption is at an all-time high. No matter the topic–daily news, celebrity gossip, sports analysis, or even legal news–it’s online. Part of this is because of the turnaround time. No longer is there a need for multiple newspapers depending on the outcome of an event. Instead, a journalist can write, edit, post, and interact on a topic in just a few seconds on social media platforms within minutes on a blog or website.

Change can be difficult to circumvent, especially for those who are used to doing things “the old fashioned way.” Shrinking physical sales equate to shrinking profits from sales, advertising, and usage. Still, online journalism leads to experimentation, integration, and collaboration. Most of the principles taught in college classrooms up until only a few years ago centered on the mass production of newsprint, dating back to the late nineteenth century instead of the current age. Schools are picking up on the advent of digital journalism, teaching ethics, and discussing best practices. Without clear cut guidelines, however, it can be difficult to get everyone to agree on just what the online journalistic ethics actually are and how to implement them. But the question isn’t just how to come up with ethics and how to implement them, but rather: how do we create online journalistic ethics that will work for everyone creating content?

What exactly is online journalism?

Before setting any ethics, there are a few questions to answer. There is a distinct lack of clarity over what it means to be a journalist, mostly among those who actually write, but not as much among those who consume. But still, the questions remain: what is journalism and what is online journalism? Like print journalism, the online variation requires  having the skills to investigate, research, work with technology, and write clearly. Ethics wise, all of these skills are used to verify truth and promote accuracy.

Types of Online Journalism

There are countless different types of online journalism. While this list isn’t exhaustive, some examples include: websites affiliated with major media companies, the websites that mesh articles and blogs, and those websites that are comprised of all blogs.

Traditional News Sites

The Washington Post has been a major American paper for more than a century. It has a completely separate print newspaper from its website and stories that originally premiered on the website rarely, if ever, end up going to the printer; however, stories that run in the newspaper do appear on the website. Some newspapers, such as The New York Times, require readers to subscribe to the service in order to read stories and access some content online. Today this type of journalism has a smaller staff of writers that may also dip into the print writing. As such, many of their ethical issues mirror those of print writers.

Hybrid News Sites

For websites that mix blogs and news articles like the Huffington Post, you will see a combination of ethics coming into play–including those surrounding images and the concerns of a 24-hour news cycle. These websites may pool from a greater number of writers  with a varying amount of skills and knowledge. In addition, they may aggregate content in addition to or instead of creating original content more than traditional news sites.

Comment News Sites

Comment-based news sites, most commonly blogs, are another way to share news. Most often, editorial content that was produced by a variety of journalists is dissected and discussed by the blogger and then through audience participation. This content is often the shortest form of news, ranging up from the 140-character limits of Twitter into full blog postings. Whether or not this is truly journalism is up for debate–but there are definitely bloggers who follow journalistic principles, and those who focus entirely on opinion.

Journalism Code of Ethics

Print journalism has had a code of ethics for decades. As per the Society of Professional Journalists, there are four categories to the code:

Seek Truth and Report it

Whenever possible, journalists need to be able to ensure that what they are reporting is true and reported fairly and accurately, without bias. This includes providing appropriate context, following up on a story if facts evolve, reporting sources fairly,  and avoiding stereotypes and assumptions.

Minimize Harm

Journalists are present to report, but must remain observers. That means that they need to be respectful of the subjects and take precautions such as the ability to “balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know.”

Act Independently

This principle is simple–a journalist shouldn’t report on a topic if he or she has a vested interest in it, such as a personal relationship with a subject.

Be Accountable and Transparent

Whenever possible, journalists should allow the public to understand the reasoning behind the information included, and the validity of that information. In addition, journalists have a responsibility to correct any errors they may have made.

While online journalists are still held to these standards, there are additional ethical concerns that online journalists have to take into account; however, many of these ethical concerns fit into the categories of the code.

New Concerns in Online Journalism

Anonymity

Online journalism gives people the chance to be anonymous, and not in a “Dear Abby” sort of way. Anonymity is a prominent facet of the internet. Today, someone can just create a name and start posting content–few would even know if that person isn’t who he or she says wrote the article. Some portals require identification, but it can be as easy as taking someone else’s photo, duping the program with a fake email, and turning off location services.

Anonymity takes away the risk of journalism and allows people to be honest and free with their thoughts; however, some worry it also creates an environment filled with irresponsibility and hurt. Even if online platforms take the extra steps to remove the anonymity of it all, comments and shares aren’t protected from “trolls” or those with ill will.

In addition, it makes many question the validity of online reporting from anonymous platforms. After all, it’s inherently not transparent. Whether or not anonymous journalists can truly be considered “journalists” is a hot topic for debate.

24-Hour News Cycle

The 24-hour news cycle that is possible because of online journalism is also one of the biggest things to cause concern in the online news market. Journalism ethics do require reporters to be accountable and seek to report truthfully, but that becomes more difficult when everything is moving so quickly. Reports, images, and opinions circulate the world faster than ever through Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, blogs, cell phones, and hashtag activism. This speed does not always promote quality, clarity, or accuracy. Instead, it is sometimes a gut reaction to the events at hand, leading to misunderstanding, and at times, fear. Major news sources like CNN often pick up rumors that are later found to be untrue, especially in situations where there is little other information. These reports can cause a “trickle down” effect where incorrect information gets reported once and then repeated, as recently seen in the Ferguson case.

Impartiality: Editors Wanted

When people write about things that they are very passionate about, which is often the case for online journalists, there is a tendency to not remain as impartial as one would wish. Online media sometimes encourages people to tell their opinion and back it up without ever posting the “flip side” of the argument. Many bloggers, in particular, take pride in this, seeing themselves as activists for particular causes or movements, rejecting neutrality; however, that doesn’t neatly fit into the ethical guidelines that require journalists to stay unbiased and truthful.

Of course there has always been an opinion sector in journalism. In fact, some even claim that we are seeing a return to the partisan journalism that colored the profession throughout the early 1900s. Some argue that the responsibility may just fall to the reader on this one: it’s important to search out people on both side of the argument.

Social Media + Reporting = Journalism?

News organizations often send their reporters “into the field” to use social media to pass on information to the general public, creating a brand and influencing traditional reports. Typically they use Twitter, but have been known to use Instagram and even Snapchat as well; however, the new world of online personas creates an ethical gray area.

Take, for example, a reporter who writes political think pieces. In her published articles, she remains impartial on the topic of Hillary Clinton’s presidential run; however, on her Twitter account, she follows @ReadyForHillary and constantly tweets about her desire for Clinton to run. Could these comments give a critic something to chew on regarding authenticity in reporting? In the past, the ability to figure out a writer’s political leanings was much harder because there was less information out there for public consumption.

The ethical challenge for news organizations that use online and offline reporting is to develop social media guidelines that allow reporters or staff members to explore the online media world while also having an online presence. That sometimes means requiring that journalists take on multiple personas, a private one and a public one, in the aims of keeping their public name neutral.

Image Ethics

Photojournalism has only boomed in popularity relatively recently since the start of the internet. Photos and videos now make it easier than ever to capture historical events; however, those same programs that allow us to snap photos and share them in just a few minutes also allow for those photos to be altered and manipulated in a relatively short amount of time. If there was no one else at the event, manipulating an image could manipulate a whole event. Take for instance the latest video of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie falling off of a chair. Said to be punishment for him supporting an opposing football team, the Philadelphia radio station added music and doctored the video, making Christie seem like a clown.

Can news sources trust the images that come from regular citizens? In the past it wasn’t as confusing, as pictures were more difficult to manipulate unless you had intense training. Now, most people know how to use at least some of the tools on Photoshop. According to the Center for Journalism Ethics: “Photojournalists often talk about how it is permitted to change the ‘technical’ aspects of a picture such as altering slightly the tone or color of a photo. But they draw the line at any further changes. Changing the meaning or content of the image so as to mislead viewers is considered unethical.”

Conclusion

In the end, we are left with a lot of questions and very few answers. The problem is that we are currently in the midst of a huge change in journalism. Ten years ago no one would have predicted the rise of websites like Instagram and Twitter because we just didn’t have that technology yet.

Until we have the answers for those questions, and the thousands more that stem from them, the answers of ethics for online journalism is left up to the individual–company, blog, person, or website. Soon enough, we will start to see a convergence on topics like anonymity and image use–it’s already happening. Colleges are slowly rolling out courses only on online journalism. The best we can do, for now, is work with integrity and professionalism and try to hold our news sources to those same standards.

While the principles of journalistic ethics still do hold true, new questions are popping up every day. Journalists do still have an obligation to seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent. The internet may make it more difficult to parse out how those ethics apply in every situation, but they remain the standards of professional journalism.

Resources

Primary

SPJ: Code of Ethics

Additional

MIT: Ethics in Photojournalism: Past, Present, Future

Boise Weekly: Ferguson Case Reveals Media Flaws

Atlantic: How is Social Media Changing Journalism

Huffington Post: Impartial Journalism’s Enduring Value

Huffington Post: Journalism in a New Era

State of Media: Newspapers by the Numbers

Center for Journalism Ethics: Online Journalism Ethics – Photojournalism

Center for Journalism Ethics: Online Journalism Ethics

Poynter: Online Journalism Ethics

SABEW: Online Journalism Poses Challenges, But Doesn’t Require New Ethical Guidelines 

Guardian: Authenticity Has Replaced Authority

Indiana University: Journalism Ethics Cases Online

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to the Center for Journalism Ethics. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What New Ethical Concerns Affect Online Journalism? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

A couple of weeks I wrote about Rolling Stone’s report of a young woman being brutally raped on the University of Virginia campus. Last week Rolling Stone retracted the story, even apologizing to its readers. After the original report hit the news cycle people hung on to every word–even the administrators at UVA took action by banning all fraternities–but now it seems that the story may not have been true.

In my first article I was conflicted about the story of Jackie–the victim–and wondered why she would value her reputation at the school by keeping quiet for so long over her own well-being and justice. I get that being raped by five to seven guys is a traumatic event, one that no one would ever want to relive, but why would you allow your “friends” to talk you into keeping something like that quiet, as the report indicated? Why allow seven rapists to troll the campus for another possible victim?

I believe in the theory that there are three sides to every story, and in this case those sides belong to the victim, the unnamed rapists, and the truth somewhere between the two. One person’s perspective on an event can be totally different from someone else’s, so combining both stories usually brings out a more accurate truth, in my opinion. What Rolling Stone  did was allow Jackie to tell her side of a story without sufficient due diligence on the part of the publication by contacting the men she accused and fact checking the story. Granted, I don’t know how much fact checking you can do when a young woman states she was raped two years ago. Yes, you can check to see if such a party took place at the frat house, but there isn’t much more access someone can get without starting to raise flags. Rolling Stone‘s journalism in this case was abysmal.

My biggest question is would UVA administrators have taken the time to do a thorough investigation if this were privately handled? I would like to think so, but the cynic in me knows that sometimes administrators put the reputation of a school above the well-being of its students.

I’m ashamed of Rolling Stone, not just because of this article but because of several missteps over the last couple of years. The cover where it got the facts wrong on who signed the Constitution–a staple of being an American. The RIDICULOUS decision to put a terrorist on the cover of its magazine where he looked more like a rockstar than an enemy of the state! Fact checking and respecting Americans is clearly not on the agenda over at Rolling Stone. Maybe you guys should stick with what you know–entertainment. But really, you shouldn’t even do that because those reviews are usually wrong, too.

Fellow Law Streeter Anneliese Mahoney wrote about how Rolling Stone’s retraction affects rape victims in America. I agree with her, the original Rolling Stone article and later retraction are going to make real victims of rape shy away even more from reporting their experiences. UVA administrators and investigators disproved certain facts that Jackie reported to Rolling Stone. Why couldn’t this publication have taken a little more time and done the right thing? Why did it not take a step back and try to get a full story? Look at the big picture? Yes, it was probably trying to do a good thing in telling this story. So many women feel like they were not alone and were encouraged to tell their story because somehow Jackie found the strength to do it. But now that “strength and courage” have been squashed by reality.

It’s Go Ask Alice all over again. The diary of a young girl that was in fact fictional but presented as truth. There is a certain level of betrayal from the publishers of Go Ask Alice and the people over at Rolling Stone. You want to help rape victims? Try doing your job and not ruining what victims have worked so hard for. That 5.9 percent of false accusations that Anneliese mentions are the ones that are heard the loudest and hung on to the longest. Those who cry wolf are the ones doing the most damage to real victims and Rolling Stone may have just let someone cry wolf on the main stage with a loud speaker.

I’ve shamed Rolling Stone. I’ve shamed UVA. I’ve even shamed Jackie. But now it’s time to reiterate that even though her story as published in Rolling Stone may not be true, anyone who is a victim of rape–or any crime–should find the strength in themselves to speak up. Be what Jackie was supposed to be–a role model who is taking charge of what happened to her and standing up for herself and victims alike.

Don’t let Rolling Stone take away your power.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone, Bad Journalism, and the Future of Rape Victims appeared first on Law Street.

Early this afternoon, Rolling Stone released a post entitled “A Note to Our Readers.” It was a follow-up to a story published last month that took an extensive look at rape culture on the campus of the University of Virginia. Although the story was far-reaching, it focused particularly on a young woman named Jackie who allegedly was gang-raped at a fraternity party. I use the word allegedly because even though I believed Jackie’s story wholeheartedly, Rolling Stone has now retracted the article.

“A Note to Our Readers” was spectacularly vague, and in my opinion, put more blame on Jackie than a nationally known and respected news publication, but that’s almost beside the point. You can read the full retraction here, but here’s the part that stuck out to me. For context, it’s important to understand that Rolling Stone never interviewed or spoke with the men Jackie accused, out of an attempt to respect the fact that she was fearful of them. This is the what Rolling Stone included in its note today:

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

There were discrepancies to Jackie’s account–for example, the fact that she may have gotten the date of the party wrong, and so on. I don’t have the information that Rolling Stone does, and they were clearly being purposefully vague–but “discrepancies” does not render the entire story null and void.

Discrepancies are part of reporting, part of crime, and part of life. Jackie was telling this story after the fact and was relaying a traumatized experience. If she didn’t have discrepancies, I’d be more surprised.

And what people want is tidy little narratives from victims. They want perfect and total recall from shocking situations.

— roxane gay (@rgay) December 5, 2014

Our legal system doesn’t demand that every little question be answered and correct–I’m going to make an entirely unfair comparison here, but a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri proved just a few weeks ago that discrepancies in stories apparently mean jack squat. So why would the existence of discrepancies make Rolling Stone pull their story?

There are a couple of explanations. One is that they’re protecting their asses. They don’t want to get sued. They are businesspeople and they are choosing to protect their business, regardless if it means invalidating a quite possibly real and shocking story.

Another explanation is that Jackie lied, and Rolling Stone didn’t catch it. I don’t want to believe this is true. False accusations are rare–exceedingly rare–but they do exist. A study out of Northeastern University estimates them at about 5.9 percent. That’s of course only out of rapes that are reported–there are far more that aren’t, which means that the people who report false rape vs. people who are actually sexually assaulted are really rare. I highly doubt that this was fabricated, but it’s not impossible. There could be half truths too–Jackie could be telling someone else’s story who was too afraid to come out with it. Either way, I can’t say with certainty but I don’t think this was a lie. And honestly if it was, that’s on Rolling Stone too for screwing up their fact checking.

Because at the end of the day, it should be Rolling Stone we’re mad at. This whole thing is going to encourage rape victims to hide, not come forward and tell their story, unless they can remember every damn detail and prove it. It’s going to shift the conversation from the legitimate problem we have with sexual assault in this country to conversations about journalism. This incident is going to be cited by rape apologists and those who claim false rape accusations until those idiots are blue in the face. It’s going to set us back, there’s no way it’s not going to.

Rolling Stone: you didn’t do your job, and now rape victims are going to pay the price.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rolling Stone Just Set Back Rape Victims’ Progress in America appeared first on Law Street.