Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is officially a suspect in two criminal cases, Israeli police officials said last week. Netanyahu, head of the conservative Likud party, has been under investigation for months. His alleged crimes: accepting illegal gifts from wealthy friends, and floating a quid pro quo deal with a newspaper publisher in a bid for more favorable coverage.

Netanyahu’s fortunes appeared to turn last week, when his former chief of staff Ari Harrow agreed to become a witness for the prosecution. Harrow, according to police, revealed damaging information about his former boss, who is suspected of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

The probes into the prime minister, known as “Case 1000” and “Case 2000,” deal with two separate instances. In “Case 1000,” Netanyahu is accused of accepting cigars and bottles of champagne from wealthy and powerful friends, including a Hollywood producer.

“Case 2000” concerns a phone call Netanyahu allegedly had with the publisher of the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Arnon Mozes. Netanyahu reportedly asked Mozes for more favorable coverage. In exchange, Netanyahu would curtail the circulation of Israel Hayom, a competitor that is traditionally pro-Netanyahu. Israel Hayom is backed by an American casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson.

On Monday, Israel’s Supreme Court said Netanyahu must reveal the dates of his phone calls with Adelson and Amos Regev, the former editor-in-chief of Israel Hayom.

According to legal analysts in Israel, it is likely Netanyahu will face charges, potentially forcing him to end his fourth term as prime minister years before scheduled elections. An indictment, which could still be months off, does not necessarily mean Netanyahu will step down, according to analysts and those familiar with Israeli law. And though Israeli prime ministers have been taken down by corruption investigations, a sitting prime minister has never been indicted.

Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, was released from prison last month after serving a 16-month sentence. Olmert was forced from power in 2008, leading to early elections in 2009, when Netanyahu was elected to the premiership.

For his part, Netanyahu has called the investigations as “background noise,” vehemently denying any wrongdoing. “We cannot go without a ‘weekly affair’, so I want to tell you, citizens of Israel, I’m not referring to the background noise, I’m continuing to work for you,” Netanyahu said in a video published on his Facebook page last Friday.

But according to a recent poll by Israeli broadcaster Channel 10, Netanyahu’s popularity might be dwindling. According to the poll, 66 percent of Israelis say Netanyahu should resign if he is charged.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Investigations into Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

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 The Ultimate News Quiz appeared first on Law Street.

After over a year of President Donald Trump accusing the mainstream media of disseminating “fake news,” Trump has been caught with a fake Time magazine cover hanging in many of his properties. After learning of the situation, a Time spokeswoman said that the magazine had asked the Trump Organization to remove the fictional covers but it had not yet received a response.

This counterfeit cover was hung in at least eight of Trump’s 17 golf courses, including Mar-A-Lago, which Trump has visited regularly since taking office. Additionally, the cover was hanging at Trump golf resorts in Ireland and Scotland until they were removed in the past few months, according to the Washington Post.

The fake cover, which is supposedly from March 1, 2009, praises Trump as a “television smash” and that he is “hitting on all fronts…even T.V!” But Time magazine argues that this is not a real cover. Instead, the real edition, which was released on March 2, 2009, features actress Kate Winslet on the cover with the headline “Best Actress.”

There were a handful of issues with the presentation that tipped off observers to the fact that the cover was, in fact, fake news. First, the border was too skinny and was missing a white divider. Next, secondary headlines were stacked on the right side as opposed to the top where Time traditionally places them. Some of the stories did indeed appear in that week’s edition, but others weren’t published until the following month, according to Newsweek.

Another crucial mistake was the use of two exclamation points, which Time almost never uses on the cover.

The kicker is that the bar code is fake and pulled directly from this tutorial on how to make a fake Time cover. The instructions were laid out by a Peruvian graphic designer.

This situation prompted Virginia congressman Gerry Connolly to mock Trump on Twitter.

Wow, my first cover of Time. Asked my staff to frame this and hang it in all four of my offices. @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Hx57ZJExR8 pic.twitter.com/y1HciTB5G1

— Gerry Connolly (@GerryConnolly) June 27, 2017

While it is still unknown who exactly put together the fake cover, or whether Trump himself knew about it, it’s clear that Trump views Time covers as a sign of success. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump bragged about being on the cover “six for politics and…two for real estate.” According to Time magazine history, Trump has indeed appeared on the cover plenty of times in the past year, albeit not always positively. But he only appeared once for his real estate ventures and that was in January 1989.

Even when giving a speech at the CIA headquarters in January, Trump boasted that he owned the “all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” In actuality Trump has appeared on the cover 11 times up to this point while Richard Nixon, the 37th president, appeared on 55 covers before his death in 1994.

Despite having appeared on the cover of the prestigious magazine plenty of times, Trump has clearly been hyperbolic when describing his number of appearances. It is unclear whether Trump knew of the fake covers or why it was created when there were legitimate alternatives, according to the Washington Post.

While there are websites that aid the public in creating fake magazine covers, it seems unethical for the President of the United States to be promoting himself with falsified news covers. And this entire debacle seems even more troublesome in the context of Trump’s repeated attacks on the news media. 

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Time Magazine Asks Trump Organization to Remove “Fake News” Cover appeared first on Law Street.

Just after midnight, President Donald Trump took to his favorite social media platform–Twitter–and sent out a puzzling tweet.

Damn, they deleted the tweet! Good that I have a screenshot. #covfefe pic.twitter.com/pjIhkXqw7I

— Katya Bohdan (@katyabohdan) May 31, 2017

It’s pretty clear that Trump meant “coverage” as opposed to “covfefe” which…isn’t a word, despite his team’s bizarre claims that he was referring to some sort of inside joke. But it doesn’t really matter why Trump tweeted out the non-word, because the rest of Twitter had a ton of fun with it. Check out the best of the new, beloved #covfefe meme below:

covfefe
covfef
covfe
covf
cov
co
c
co
com
comi
comin
coming
coming o
coming ou
coming out of my cage and i’ve been doing just fine

— mar (@happiestweekes) May 31, 2017

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 The Best Twitter Responses to “Covfefe” 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.

On Wednesday, The Hollywood Reporter released a cover story about CNN’s strategy to rise to the top of the digital media landscape. But the accompanying photo generated controversy when a senior producer for the network tweeted it out, claiming that it represented the “future of media.”

The future of media looks like this.

Proud to be part of this team. @CaseyNeistat @Bourdain @jaketapper @wkamaubell and @CNN chief Zucker pic.twitter.com/B7enhLXqYd

— Josiah Daniel Ryan (@JosiahRyan) March 1, 2017

The cover features the producer, Josiah Ryan, as well as the network’s president Jeff Zucker, anchor Jake Tapper, comedian W. Kamau Bell–who hosts CNN’s show “United Shades of America”—and chef Anthony Bourdain, who hosts “Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown.”

Ryan’s followers were quick to notice something missing about the so-called future of media: there were no women.

The responses ranged from sarcastic to serious, as critics took the opportunity to bring attention to gender disparities in the field. A 2015 report by the Women’s Media Center found that women are still underrepresented in newsrooms across the country. According to the study, 60 percent of news broadcasts are anchored by men, 63 percent of bylines for written articles belong to men, and the proportion of female staffers in newsroom has hovered around 36 percent since 1999.

If this is the case, Twitter users noted that the future of media won’t look too different.

are you sure this is what the future of media looks like because I think maybe this is also what the past & present of media looks like https://t.co/97ws0pVEVP

— Hanif Abdurraqib (@NifMuhammad) March 1, 2017

Some pointed out the irony of the article marking the start of Women’s History Month.

https://twitter.com/NARAL/status/837007640307908610

@JosiahRyan @CaseyNeistat @Bourdain @jaketapper @wkamaubell @CNN great Women's History Month post!! woooo!!!!

— rae paoletta (@PAYOLETTER) March 1, 2017

Though CNN employs well-known journalists and correspondents like Christiane Amanpour, Dana Bash, Erin Burnett, and Brooke Baldwin, none of them were included in the story.

i find it a liiiittle hard to believe THR couldn't find ONE woman at CNN who could sit in on the cover shoot.

— Maya Kosoff (@mekosoff) March 1, 2017

ok come on, this is exhausting. @Bourdain is on here but not a single woman? How is that the future of media? https://t.co/ZzRKX4l7uu

— Olivia Messer (@OliviaMesser) March 1, 2017

One journalist took it upon herself to paint another picture of the future of the media, compiling a list of reporters and writers from a wide range of backgrounds.

since @THR clearly has forgotten that people beyond cis men exist, here's what the *actual* future of media looks like:

— rae paoletta (@PAYOLETTER) March 1, 2017

Sometimes, a gif paints a thousand words.

@JosiahRyan @CaseyNeistat @Bourdain @jaketapper @wkamaubell @CNN pic.twitter.com/zmbobbNmug

— kat calvin (@KatCalvinLA) March 1, 2017

According to advocacy groups like the Representation Project, whose cofounder was behind the documentary “Miss Representation,” when media outlets do not portray women as powerful politicians or journalists—or, in this case, do not give them credit for helping to fight “CNN’s war”–then other women may be discouraged from pursuing high-level jobs that they perceive to be male-dominated. The Hollywood Reporter has also faced backlash before for failing to represent actresses of color specifically, when it hosted an Oscars roundtable of all-white actresses it considered to be Academy Awards contenders in 2015.

When newsrooms are more diverse in terms of not only gender, but race, orientation, religion, or economic background, these factors can contribute to fairer and more well-rounded coverage of the news.

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 Twitter Responds to CNN and The Hollywood Reporter: The Future of Media is Female appeared first on Law Street.

The White House has taken the next step in its war against the media, by blocking journalists from some of the biggest news outlets from the daily press briefing on Friday. Reporters from the New York Times, CNN, Buzzfeed, the Los Angeles Times, and Politico, all of which have published critical pieces about Donald Trump, were stopped from entering the press briefing.

The only news outlets that were allowed in had been confirmed previously, the White House said, and included right leaning Breitbart News, the One America News Network, the Washington Times, and Fox News. ABC, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg were also allowed in. The briefing was also changed from an on-camera event to an off-camera gaggle.

This marks an unusual and brusque new approach to the Executive Branch’s relationship with the media. Journalists from Time and the Associated Press chose to not attend in solidarity, even though they were allowed in.

The executive editor of the NY Times Dean Baquet condemned the White House’s move in a statement:

Nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history of covering multiple administrations of different parties. We strongly protest the exclusion of The New York Times and the other news organizations. Free media access to a transparent government is obviously of crucial national interest.

Naturally the announcement by Spicer caused an uproar.

AP and Time boycotted the gaggle today because of the way it was handled.

— Adrian Carrasquillo (@Carrasquillo) February 24, 2017

Here’s CNN’s response:

CNN was blocked from WH @PressSec‘s media gaggle today. This is our response: pic.twitter.com/8SfY2uYKEI

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) February 24, 2017

And many reporters showed solidarity with each other and pointed out that no matter political difference of opinions, government press briefings should be open to all.

Some at CNN & NYT stood w/FOX News when the Obama admin attacked us & tried 2 exclude us-a WH gaggle should be open to all credentialed orgs https://t.co/8Vjcs0KCPR

— Bret Baier (@BretBaier) February 24, 2017

Numerous White House reporters have split up the duties of transcribing the Spicer gaggle to share with their colleagues who were excluded.

— Byron Tau (@ByronTau) February 24, 2017

The move to shut some reporters out came just hours after President Trump’s speech at the CPAC, where he said that the media is “the enemy of the people.” He said reporters shouldn’t be allowed to have anonymous sources, and claimed they just make information up. “We’re going to do something about it,” he said.

The White House Correspondents Association disapproved of the White House’s actions. “We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not,” the organization said in a statement. “The board will be discussing this further with White House staff.”

Some analysts believe the president is doing all he can to discredit the media and shake people’s trust in it, since it is one of the biggest treats to his presidency. “By hammering reporters as dishonest purveyors of fake news, Trump simultaneously rallies his fans and lays the groundwork for dismissing fair-minded journalism as the work of partisan hacks,” said Peter Slevin, an associate professor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to believe the rumors and repeat Trump’s cry of “fake news.” But that won’t stop journalists from doing their jobs.

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 White House Bans Reporters From Press Briefing: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, has been going on just outside of D.C. all week and on Friday the president took the stage. President Donald Trump spent the first half of his speech bashing the media, saying that “the dishonest press” and “fake news” are “the enemy of the people.” He went on to say that he doesn’t oppose negative stories about himself, but that the media is just making things up. Then, Trump explained how he is going to follow through on his campaign promises such as the dismantling of Obamacare, the construction of the border wall, the deportation of “bad dudes,” and the creation of more jobs.

Trump also claimed that there were so many people who wanted to see him speak that the line outside the Gaylord Hotel and Convention Center where the event is taking place went for six blocks. “There are lines that go back six blocks. I tell you that because you won’t read about it,” he said.

Reporters at Jezebel decided to look into it, and concluded that the reason you won’t read about it is because it didn’t happen; they couldn’t find any evidence of long lines. Volunteers who were stationed by the doors to check peoples’ tickets denied seeing any long lines, and the only big crowds of people to arrive simultaneously came from buses. Jezebel also pointed out that the area where the hotel is located doesn’t even stretch for six blocks.

At one point, several attendees started waving Russian flags with Trump’s name on them.

Someone handed out Trump Russian flags on the #CPAC2017 floor before Trump’s speech pic.twitter.com/uf1ADMt6ZL

— Taylor Lorenz (@TaylorLorenz) February 24, 2017

When staffers saw the flags they hurriedly confiscated them.

Crowd at CPAC waving these little pro-Trump flags that look exactly like the Russian flag. Staffers quickly come around to confiscate them. pic.twitter.com/YhPpkwFCNc

— Peter Hamby (@PeterHamby) February 24, 2017

It’s unknown who made or handed out the flags and why. It’s also unclear whether people even realized it was the Russian flag they were waving, or if they just thought it was just a flag with the American red, white, and blue colors. But according to journalist Sarah Posner, there was at least one attendee who wore a t-shirt that said “Make Russia Great Again.” Prank or not, the incident gave rise to some laughs.

@PeterHamby @mkraju “Excuse me Sir, your Russia is showing. Let me hide that for you. Carry on.”

— MichelleK (@Michelle_In_AR) February 24, 2017

Well played, anonymous CPAC monkeywrencher. https://t.co/ZXElPROsKx

— Angus Johnston (@studentactivism) February 24, 2017

Are Russian flags the Right’s answer to #pussyhats? #CPAC #TRUMP https://t.co/FM74Irzwg4

— lnmassaro (@liddabird) February 24, 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 What’s Up at CPAC?: Attacks on “Fake News” and Russian-Themed Trump Flags appeared first on Law Street.

A Tuesday interview between CNN’s Jake Tapper and President Donald Trump’s right hand woman Kellyanne Conway turned into a heated discussion and continued the feud between the news organization and the White House. After the interview, Axios reported that a “source with direct knowledge” said that some in the Republican Party have been urging at least one conservative website to track down damaging information on Jake Tapper and publish “hit pieces” on him.

Trump and CNN have had a strained relationship for some time, and since Tapper is one of the channel’s top journalists, he is a pretty obvious target. But Tapper didn’t freak out about the threat. In fact, he seemed to take it pretty lightly.

So now we sit and wait to see which obedient attack dog follows orders. Arf arf!! https://t.co/GXBrHDblQp

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 8, 2017

He even posted some “compromising” information about himself to stall any coming attacks.

Cut a school assembly in May 1983 to see Return of the Jedi on its first day. #TapperDirtFile #JubJub pic.twitter.com/sbuXAzQBve

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 8, 2017

Maybe that wasn’t so bad, but what about this one?

@jaketapper how could you pic.twitter.com/sa9YpWlJAM

— Matthew D’Ambrosio™ (@drmattdambrosio) February 8, 2017

Other people soon followed and shared own their versions of a #TapperDirtFile.

I saw @jaketapper dump his fast food garbage ENTIRELY in the garbage bin, when he COULD have sorted SOME into recyclables! #tapperdirtfile

— Jacob M. (@RealLifeHoser) February 8, 2017

@jaketapper successfully lobbied against CNN’s 1 beard policy.

…Wolf Blitzer hasn’t spoken to him since #TapperDirtFile

— Jack Tweets (@jackTweets11) February 8, 2017

The interview that started this phenomenon had to do with Trump’s recent claim that the media doesn’t report on terror attacks. The White House released a list of 78 terrorist attacks that it believes the media didn’t cover enough. The list included some of the biggest terror attacks in recent years, which were obviously very well covered by the media.

“It’s offensive given the fact that CNN and other media organizations have reporters in danger right now in war zones covering ISIS,” Tapper said on Tuesday. “And I just don’t understand how the president can make an attack like that.” Conway replied that the list was just intended to increase awareness of the international threat of terrorism.

Tapper also questioned Conway about why the president hasn’t commented publicly or tweeted about the mosque attack by a white man in Quebec City that killed six people and wounded eight. The President had tweeted about the attack outside the Louvre in Paris, where no one was killed, but the attacker was Muslim. Conway replied that the president “doesn’t tweet about everything,” even though most of us think he could probably use a break from his smartphone.

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 Jake Tapper Tweets Dirt About Himself After Rumors that the GOP is Targeting Him appeared first on Law Street.

Pope Francis called on the media to seek transparency and truth in the wake of an election cycle influenced heavily by fake news–reports that the pope found to be scandal-minded and sinful.

The leader of the Catholic Church compared the spreading of disinformation to an unhealthy obsession with feces in an interview with the Belgian Catholic weekly, Tertio. The pope said:

I believe that the media should be very clear, very transparent, and not fall prey–without offense, please–to the sickness of coprophilia, which is always wanting to communicate scandal, to communicate ugly things, even though they may be true.

The unusual term, coprophilia, is a medical term used to describe arousal from excrement or feces.

Pope Francis used the example to criticize the media’s pleasure in spreading such “disinformation,” and said it would be a sin for a journalist’s purpose to be anything other than educating the public.

“Disinformation is probably the greatest damage that the media can do, as opinion is guided in one direction, neglecting the other part of the truth,” Pope Francis explained.

The pope commented on the temptations to raise slanderous claims, but went on to say that every person has the right to a good reputation.

“[The] communications media have their temptations. They can be tempted by calumny, and therefore used to slander, to sully people, especially in the world of politics,” the pope said.

Wednesday’s interview heavily referenced the global debate over the surge of fake news websites. According to some observers, the abundance of fake news during the 2016 presidential election could have swayed the election in favor of Donald Trump.

Shockingly enough, the pope is no stranger to the fake news cycle.

A story that circulated earlier this year reported that Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump for President of the United States. The article was completely fabricated and proven to be false.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pope Francis Calls Fake News a Sin, Compares it to Fascination With Feces appeared first on Law Street.

AT&T’s $85.4 billion deal to buy Time Warner turned media consolidation into a campaign issue for both Democrats and Republicans this past weekend. 

The biggest deal of the year–announced just over two weeks before the November 8 U.S. election–received backlash from critics who believe the combination of AT&T’s millions of wireless and pay-television subscribers with Time Warner’s stable of TV networks and programming would reduce competition and hurt consumers.

Any merger would have to be reviewed and approved by federal antitrust regulators. The announcement caused a stir in Washington and led the candidates to criticize the status quo on antitrust and regulatory enforcement.

Donald Trump’s campaign has remained vocal about its distaste for the media and proposed merger did not sit well with the billionaire mogul.

“As an example of the power structure I’m fighting, AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” Trump said during a speech on Saturday.

The Republican candidate has been vocal about the “disgusting and corrupt” media. The campaign’s economic advisor Peter Navarro criticized the new media oligopolies for unduly influencing America’s political process.

“AT&T, the original and abusive ‘Ma Bell’ telephone monopoly, is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal because it concentrates too much power in the hands of the too and powerful few,” Navarro said in a statement on Sunday.

Trump said that if he is elected, he would look at breaking up the 2011 merger of Comcast and NBCUniversal. The Obama administration approved the merger with some restrictions in 2011.

Trump said of Comcast-NBCUniversal, “We’ll look at breaking that deal up, and other deals like that. This should never, ever have been approved in the first place.”

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hasn’t yet weighed in on the merger plan, but her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he shared “concerns and questions” raised by fellow Senator Al Franken, a Democrat representing Minnesota. Franken, a member of the antitrust subcommittee, said in a statement that huge media mergers “can lead to higher costs, fewer choices, and even worse service for consumers.”

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders joined the political opposition and urged the Obama administration to kill the deal. He tweeted:

The administration should kill the Time Warner-AT&T merger. This deal would mean higher prices and fewer choices for the American people.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) October 23, 2016

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The AT&T-Time Warner Deal Quickly Becomes a Campaign Issue appeared first on Law Street.

The media output and amount of propaganda coming from the terror group ISIS has dropped dramatically as the group has experienced increasing military pressure, according to a new study. In August of last year, which was the peak of ISIS’s media activity, the group released 700 media items from official sources in Syria and other countries. This past August, it only published or released 200 items.

The propaganda by ISIS has from the beginning focused on how the group is creating a functioning new society with thriving businesses and happy citizens–a new caliphate, meaning a unified Muslim country. Foreign Muslims were “invited” to move to Syria and live in a peaceful, thriving Muslim community, specifically in Raqqua. The propaganda material often featured pictures of happy children and a life of prosperity. But as the fighters face defeats and mounting pressure, Aleppo is in ruins, and some high profile leaders have been killed, that image becomes harder and harder to uphold.

Daniel Milton from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, who wrote the new report, told the New York Times:

It’s not just the numeric decline. The caliphate was their big selling point. Now there’s an inability to say we’re doing the things that make us a state. And that was behind their broad appeal.

Very interesting piece on falling ISIS media output. Sobering last question on traumatised youth growing up in Raqqa https://t.co/UWnS8iboKX

— Julian Sayarer (@Julian_Sayarer) October 11, 2016

Another figure that illustrates the Islamic State’s shrinking influence is how many foreign fighters join the cause. According to the Pentagon the number of fighters going to Syria and Iraq from other countries has shrunk from about 2,000 a month a year ago to only 200.

Milton believes the decreased media output is due to the military actions against ISIS. The fact is that the “caliphate” is not an organized state. It is a group of militants trying to fight for a cause, but this means that the people publishing media content are also soldiers. When they fight, no one is there to put out media content, and when they get killed, the army shrinks even more. Also many media outlets, like Twitter, have made an effort to block radical Islamic accounts.

But even though the new information points to decreased power when it comes to territory as well as propaganda, experts warn that the ideology and mentality of the Islamic state will keep attracting lone terrorists for a long time. There is also the risk that Islamic fighters will return to their real home countries in the West, and carry out terror attacks like the ones seen in France. And, lastly, there is the problem of how to take care of the kids that have grown up during the war and been fed with propaganda for their whole lives.

“How do you deal with all the children who have had these experiences and who have been exposed to this worldview? This is going to be a long-term problem,” said Milton.

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 Why Has ISIS Propaganda Production Decreased? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy few weeks for Peter Thiel. First, news broke that Thiel’s nemesis Gawker is shutting down (and blaming Thiel for its demise). Now, everyone is talking about a new startup that Thiel is backing, that would seemingly make it easier for plaintiffs to pay for civil lawsuits.

The startup is called Legalist. It focuses on litigation finance, which is a fancy way of saying that it funds lawsuits by other people, and then takes a cut of the settlement–up to 50 percent. Legalist isn’t the first company to come up with this idea by any means. But it thinks it has a better shot at identifying the winning cases, by using algorithms to “analyze millions of court cases to source, vet, and finance commercial litigation.”

On its website Legalist explains:

Unlike other litigation finance companies, Legalist uses data-backed methods to select, vet, and invest in litigation. Our algorithms trawl tens of millions of past court cases to accurately and efficiently assess litigation risk. As a result, Legalist is able to make faster decisions, on more cases.

The company was founded by two Harvard undergrads, Eva Shang and Christian Haigh; they were at least partially funded with a $100,000 Thiel Foundation grant. However, it does seem like Legalist is distinct from the kind of lawsuit that Thiel bankrolled against Gawker, brought by Hulk Hogan. Shang told the Guardian: “I used to work for a public defender in DC. We’re not funding criminal cases, nor would I be funding any suits against the media.” She instead floated the idea that Legalist could be used to help in a case like a “bakery damaged by a burst pipe bogged down in costly litigation.”

While Legalist’s aims appear to be good, the fact that Thiel is at all involved has garnered a lot of attention, and it’s not hard to imagine why. Thiel bankrolling Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker, and Gawker’s subsequent bankruptcy and downfall, have worried a lot of people. For example, Trevor Timm of the Daily Dot wrote an excellent and thoughtful (albeit snarky) list of questions for people “cheering Gawker’s demise.” Dan Kennedy, an associate professor at Northwestern’s School of Journalism said as part of an answer in an interview:

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 Legalist: Peter Thiel Backed New Startup that Helps Fund Lawsuits appeared first on Law Street.

Sports, particularly the Olympic Games, have the potential to give us some awesome gifs. Remember McKayla Maroney’s not impressed face from four years ago?

Or this synchronized swimmer rising from the water in a particularly derptastic fashion?

Or Ashley Wagner’s “bullshit” gif from the most recent winter games?

Well unfortunately we won’t have access to as many awesome gif moments from this year’s Rio Olympic Games. Per the International Olympic Committee (IOC):

Internet and Mobile Platforms Notwithstanding any other applicable limitation included in these NARs, Olympic Material must not be broadcast on interactive services such as ‘news active’ or ‘sports active’ or any other related Video on Demand services, which would allow the viewer to make a viewing choice within a channel and to thereby view Olympic Material at times and programs other than when broadcast as part of a News Program as set out in Clause 1 above. Additionally, the use of Olympic Material transformed into graphic animated formats such as animated GIFs (i.e. GIFV), GFY, WebM, or short video formats such as Vines and others, is expressly prohibited.

Rules for people attending the games include:

Video or audio content taken from within Olympic venues … must only be for personal use and must not be uploaded or shared on any website, blog, social media page, photo or video-sharing sites, or other mobile application. Broadcasting images via live-streaming applications (e.g. Periscope, Meerkat) is prohibited inside Olympic venues.

This announcement shouldn’t really come as a surprise, given that the IOC hinted at strict prohibitions in May when it disclosed that only its rights holders could share Olympic content. NBC, and its international counterparts who also have the rights to Olympic footage have paid hefty prices for those rights, and the IOC understandably wants to protect them. However, it does appear that NBC is still going to be making its own gifs, so all is not lost.

But a lot of people are wondering if the prohibition on gifs will even be possible, or wise. While it’s one thing to ban media organizations from making gifs or short videos, it’s going to be a lot harder to prevent the internet as a whole from doing so. Remember that time that Beyonce wanted photos taken down from the internet?

So, all gif hope isn’t lost, but it’s doubtful we’ll have quite as many as in 2012 or 2014.

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 Bad News: We Won’t Have Many Olympic Gifs appeared first on Law Street.

Police officers in Idaho are hereby banned from talking to the media on weekends. The new policy from the Police Department in Lewiston, Idaho became official earlier this week in order redistribute resources during understaffed weekends. Journalists seeking weekend updates must now be present at an actual crime scene, even if it’s only to get a quick brief.

Lewiston’s City Councilman Jesse Maldonado disapproves of the new rule and called it “disquieting.” He told the Idaho Statesman, “City residents reading the newspaper, their interest doesn’t stop on Friday. That’s just not how it works.”

Newspaper readers aren’t the only ones affected by Idaho police suspending communications during weekends. The decision also hinders transparency between the police and the public, preventing them from interacting openly with the community. In the midst of recent discussions about police misconduct and violence, it would probably be in the police department’s own interest to show openness towards the media.

As Law Street reported previously, the number of prosecutions of police officers involved in civilian shootings is higher than it’s been in a decade. It’s possible that these numbers have grown in part due to growing media attention on the issue. Therefore, the media could play an important role in bringing cases of misconduct into the limelight.

According to the Idaho Statesman, surrounding towns have very open and transparent relationship with the media. One sheriff claimed that he bas given his cell phone number to reporters and another officer claimed he allows reporters to have access to call logs and personnel during regular business hours.

“As an agency we have a good, efficient, working relationship with the media and we keep those channels of communication open,” said Joel Hasting, Police Chief in Clarkston, Washington. “It’s about the police department being part of the community and not segregated.”

Progress is being made to make police departments more transparent, with more and more officers wearing body cameras and being indicted for use of excessive force. Prohibiting police officers from talking to the media seems like a step backwards. However, the mayor of Idaho pointed out that they can change the new policy at any time if it ends up hindering public information. Hopefully he will keep an eye out for that.

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 Idaho City Bans Police From Talking to Media on Weekends appeared first on Law Street.

On June 12, a gunman in Orlando, Florida murdered 49 people at a gay nightclub. In response to this attack, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump seemed to fuel the fires of conspiracy during a “Fox & Friends” appearance, alluding to a greater plot involving President Obama.

Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind — you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable. There’s something going on.

He doesn’t get it or he gets it better than anybody understands — it’s one or the other, and either one is unacceptable.

The Washington Post ran a story on Trump’s comment with the headline “Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting.” Even though Trump may have stopped short of actually saying “Obama played a purposeful role in the Orlando shooting,” there’s no question that he drew a connection, which allowed listeners to speculate.

Trump has to know the effects of his comments, and the media firestorm he can set off with the shortest sound bite. Playing coy–suggesting something insane, only to recoil when he is accused of the suggestion–is an all too common ploy for Trump.

Just think back to when he claimed Judge Gonzalo Curiel couldn’t fairly rule on Trump University cases because of his heritage, only to insist that there is nothing racist about his statement. Or just a few weeks ago, when he accused Hillary Clinton of playing “the woman card,” then fiercely denied that the statement was sexist.

This pattern allows him to feed the narrative that the media is corrupt and set against him. That is why Trump revoked the Post’s press credentials, detailing his reasons in a Facebook post:

I am no fan of President Obama, but to show you how dishonest the phony Washington Post is, they wrote, “Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting” as their headline. Sad! Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post.

Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron made a statement in reaction to this revocation:

Donald Trump’s decision to revoke The Washington Post’s press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished, said in a statement. The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along — honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically, and unflinchingly.  We’re proud of our coverage, and we’re going to keep at it.

Compare this behavior with Hillary Clinton’s notorious caution towards the press–such as when she drew criticism for “corralling” the press behind a rope so that they didn’t crowd her during public appearances. Trump’s distrust of the media goes even further, as he has thrown out reporters from his events.

Clearly, the Post won’t be quiet about Trump’s campaign, although it may now be harder to get a scoop as quickly as other outlets.

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 Trump Revokes Washington Post Press Credentials appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump has many talents: amassing large sums of money, ostensibly writing checks to charities, and provoking confrontations with the media. On Tuesday, at Trump Tower in New York, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee managed to show off all three of those skills in a 40-minute televised speech.

Trump said that he raised $5.6 million during a fundraiser for veterans held in January. He also rattled off the names of the charities that were presented donations from that chunk of change, after he received pressure from the media to reveal where the money raised ended up going. And he also responded to that pressure, spending a bulk of the speech deriding the media as being “unbelievably dishonest” and singling out ABC News’s Tom Llamas as a “sleaze.”

“But what I don’t want is when I raise millions of dollars, have people say, like this sleazy guy right over here from ABC,” Trump said, skirting eye contact with Llamas, but aggressively pointing at him while squinting into the cameras. “He’s a sleaze in my book. You’re a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well.”

The speech was a response to mounting pressure from the press about the particulars of the veterans’ fundraiser, which Trump held in lieu of attending a Fox News debate. The reporters’ questions were simple: how much money was raised, and to whom was it donated?

The confusion about the amount of money that was raised stemmed from contradictory statements by Trump and his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. Trump initially announced the event’s haul as being $6 million; Lewandowski told The Washington Post it was $4.5 million. On Tuesday, the real estate mogul cleared up the foggy figure, pinpointing the amount raised as $5.6 million and rising.

He explained the lengthy donation process as a result of making sure the charities poised to receive donations were properly vetted. All of the checks have been sent, he said, save for one to the Project for Patriots, a veteran housing group based in Sioux City, Iowa.

The largest of Trump’s contributions was made to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation for a purported amount of $1.1 million. A representative told Law Street: “Mr. Trump sent us a check last week for a million dollars.”

Whether that check was signed and sent amid the increased media attention thrust on the issue or after a drawn out vetting process is unclear. But Trump prefers his donations to fly under the radar, a shockingly different philosophy than how he has run his presidential campaign thus far: “I could have asked all these groups to come here and I didn’t want to do that. I’m not looking for credit.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Attacks Media, Calls Journalist a “Sleaze” During Tuesday Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Remember Helga from Hey Arnold!? The blonde-haired tyrannical bully who constantly picked on Arnold? She used to tease him endlessly, calling him names in front of his friends. Meanwhile, she had his photo in her locket, and a shrine of all things Arnold hidden in her room.

That’s a pretty good comparison to Donald Trump’s relationship with the media. He constantly derails the media for “bias” and “lying,” all the while feeding off of the coverage they give him. The latest clash in Trump’s war on free press (it’s like the war on Christmas, but real) concerns a satirical front page published by the Boston Globe. The page is from a future issue, dated April 9th, 2017, featuring the headline “DEPORTATIONS TO BEGIN.” The accompanying article makes mention of Attorney General Chris Christie, and a White House press blacklist including Megyn Kelly. The fake stories were accompanied by a scathing op-ed from the editorial board.

Trump refused to take the incendiary publication lying down, responding in typical stream-of-consciousness fashion:

How about that stupid Boston Globe, it’s worthless, sold for a dollar. Did you see that story? The whole front page — they made up a story, they pretended Trump is the president, and they made up the whole front page, it’s a make-believe story, which is really no different from the whole paper — I mean, the whole thing is made up. And I think they’re having a big backlash on that one.

Doubling down on the Globe’s decision, Kathleen Kingsbury, deputy managing editor of the editorial page, said “we delivered copies of the editorial to his campaign because we wanted to make sure he saw what we wrote.”

According to the New York Times’ fantastic analysis of Donald Trump’s Twitter presence, Trump has insulted just about every news outlet under the sun, from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal to CNN and Huffington Post. He’ll skewer mainstream media, swatting down Vanity Fair, Univision, and The View with derisive tweets. Almost no large news corporation is saved from Trump’s ire.

And yet the press still loves to cover him. CBS CEO Les Moonves (which is a man’s name and title as well as a tongue-twister), told The Hollywood Reporter, “The money’s rolling in and this is fun. I’ve never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

And how could The Donald not love the attention? The New York Times estimated that the news media had given Trump the equivalent of $1.9 billion in free publicity. I doubt that Trump actually has a shrine in one of his many homes with effigies of Megyn Kelly and Anderson Cooper lit by luxury candles, but I’m pretty sure that he secretly appreciates the hateful words being said about him–after all, the Trump family motto is: There’s No Such Thing As Bad Press.

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 The Boston Globe Hates Trump, Trump Hates The Globe appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump may have received a bizarre endorsement from Sarah Palin earlier this week, but now he’s receiving a lot of “anti-endorsements” as well. A number of prominent American voices, including celebrities, academics, and activists have joined together to help defeat Trump as he attempts to win the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential nomination.

The list of people who have signed on to the “Stop Hate Dump Trump” campaign is rapidly growing–it currently includes Harry Belafonte, Cornel West, Danny Glover, Jane Fonda, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Kerry Washington, Reza Aslan, Eve Ensler, Connie Britton, Gloria Steinem, Cynthia Nixon, Rosie O’Donnell, Dylan McDermott, and many others.

The petition to “Stop Hate Dump Trump” reads:

We believe Trump is a grave threat to democracy, freedom, human rights, equality, and the welfare of our country and all our people.

We have witnessed Trump inciting hatred against Muslims, immigrants, women, the disabled. We have seen him evidencing dangerous tendencies that threaten the bedrock of democracy: unleashing a lynch mob mentality against protestors, calling for the expulsion of Muslims from the country, bullying, and fear-mongering.

History has shown us what happens when people refuse to stand against hate-filled leaders.

We pledge ourselves to speak out in every way possible against the politics of hate and exclusion he represents.

The star-studded cohort that is backing the petition collectively has a pretty large microphone, and the campaign has generated plenty of buzz since it launched yesterday. In addition to criticizing Trump’s consistently racist, xenophobic, and sexist statements, the movement also appears to be critical of the media’s willingness to cover Trump’s latest outrageous remark without real criticism. Liza Donnelley, a cartoonist for the New Yorker, has also lent her talented pen to the movement, and has created some Dump Trump-inspired cartoons for the movement–her work criticizes both Trump, and also that cyclical media coverage.

Trump scares me. I drew some #cartoons, signed this petition. See here: https://t.co/DvNCUcPy6m #stophatedumptrump pic.twitter.com/U6VckyT7Jm

— lizadonnelly (@lizadonnelly) January 21, 2016

Trump scares me. I drew some #cartoons, signed this petition. See here: https://t.co/DvNCUcPy6m#stophatedumptrumppic.twitter.com/7H2xR27EOx — lizadonnelly (@lizadonnelly) January 21, 2016

Trump scares me. I drew some #cartoons, signed this petition. See here: https://t.co/DvNCUcPy6m #stophatedumptrump pic.twitter.com/mdEy50za8S — lizadonnelly (@lizadonnelly) January 21, 2016

The celebrities, activists, and others lending their names and voices to the Stop Hate Dump Trump movement collectively have a pretty large microphone–it’s admirable that they’re using it for a worthy cause. As we get closer and closer to the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, we’ll have to see if they’re able to make any dent in Trump’s poll numbers.

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 #StopHateDumpTrump: Celebrities Team Up to Defeat Trump appeared first on Law Street.

In the 21st century, African-Americans enjoy more equality and freedom in the United States than ever before. However, in just the past few years, issues of civil rights have once again come to the forefront. The ruinous relationship between young black men and law enforcement has rapidly ascended to the height of public discourse and consciousness–at a level not seen since the 1960s and 1970s. Although there has been robust discussion regarding police-minority relations, a more comprehensive discussion of institutional racism in the media and the black identity it contrives has seldom been had.

Many theorize that this black identity may be a significant impediment to economic mobility within the black community, especially when many black boys will grow up either wanting to be like Michael Jordan or Tupac Shakur. Achieving that level of fame in athletics and music is clearly difficult to accomplish, so when these boys don’t make it, criminality can become a third path that is both viable and desirable. Critics of the black identity argue that possibly it is the legacy of the past that is reinforcing these career paths and preventing progress. Read on to learn about this criticism of the modern black identity, its roots in slavery, and its perpetuation in the media.

Athletics

Courtesy of Cliff via Flickr

Succeeding in sports, particularly basketball and football, is a status symbol in American society as a whole, but even more so in the black community. As John Milton Hoberman states, “the celebration of black athleticism as a source of clan pride exists on a scale most people do not comprehend.” Athletic greats like Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Jim Brown and many other black athletes enjoy a high level of reverence in their cultural community and function as role models for young black males. From a young age black males, many of whom live in areas of poverty, view these athletes and their humble backgrounds as a way out of poverty and the ghetto. They then begin to define themselves in terms of their athletic ability.

As Professors S. Plous and Tyrone Williams of Wesleyan University point out, this emphasis on athletic prowess today is predicated upon the emphasis on physical capabilities which once made slaves valuable. Slaves who were stronger and more physically capable were more proficient in their labor. Similarly, in the 21st century, many argue that too many black teens are infatuated with physical abilities through the medium of sports. The importance of African-Americans being physically more capable began in slavery, but has since evolved into a norm and a source of pride in the black community. There’s a worry that today it amounts to deluding young black male teens into undermining their education in favor of an improbable athletic career. These critics of the modern black identity point out that slaves did not enjoy the luxury of an education. Therefore, quality education is the necessary first step to reform these stereotypes and place black youth on attainable paths to success.

Music

Courtesy of Alex Const via Wikimedia Commons

Musical endeavors in the black community are also very common, however, as with sports, the music industry is a difficult field to break into. Nevertheless it is pursued vehemently by black youths. This emphasis on music, according to some, is also rooted in slavery. Slaves used music as a way to retain their African culture and as a coping mechanism to numb the pain of slavery. Author Megan Sullivan describes their negro spirituals as a type of “musical rebellion” in an essay writing,

Subsequent generations of Africans gradually became African-Americans as a rich culture infused with music developed under the harsh conditions of slavery. White Americans considered African-Americans separate and unequal for centuries, going to extraordinary lengths to keep Negroes oppressed and apart. Yet behind the strict, segregating curtain hung between ‘Black’ and ‘White,’ African-Americans created a distinctive music that sank its roots deeply into their American experience and drew from it an amazing evolution of sound that has penetrated that racist fabric and pervaded the entirety of American culture. Music became a way to remain connected to their African heritage while protesting the bleak conditions African Americans faced throughout history. Musical protest took on assorted forms and functions as Blacks strove to advance their social station while simultaneously retaining their cultural heritage.

These songs of slavery create an interesting parallel with rap and hip hop music, which also was conceived in a furnace of racial inequality and oppression, although in inner cities rather than cotton fields. Yet these critics of music’s preeminent role in black culture argue that we must acknowledge that the inner cities require a more nuanced approach to success, and not an insistence on past principles. They argue that historically music was utilized as a means of rebellion and defiance because it was absolutely necessary as millions were treated as subhuman. The argument follows that today’s music, specifically rap, is often used as a means of defiance, but is less needed as there are more constructive outlets now than in the time of slavery. This is especially true as some rap music continues to glorify and condone the third principle, criminality.

Criminality

Criminality is certainly not praised and revered in the black community as musical or athletic pursuits. However, according to black identity reformers, when the two fail, criminal behavior in many black communities is not only seen as palatable, but glorified, as it represents a form of rebellion against oppression. The emphasis on music, particularly rap music, perpetuates this glorification of criminality and further validates the lawlessness.

Interestingly, this is directly analogous to the conditions of slaves. As Sullivan mentioned, music was a means to organize rebellions and protest for slaves. Indeed the act of responding to oppression through crime as a justification for the lawlessness is also rooted in slavery. In the days of slavery, it was criminal for a black slave to seek liberty and equal rights as delineated in the Declaration of Independence. Since black slaves were strong willed and conscious of their inalienable rights, many valiantly and fearlessly sought liberty even though at that time this constituted criminal behavior. In the same manner that criminality was conceivably deemed desirable by the black slaves seeking liberty, criminality continues to be deemed acceptable by some black Americans today fed up with their disparate equality of liberty, relative to other members of American society. Of course, according to proponents of fundamentally altering the black identity, there is a difference. They argue that in the past civil disobedience and criminality were morally justified, but today are morally ambiguous if not reprehensible.

The Role of Media

According to reformers, media plays a big role in the black community’s continued emphasis on physical and musical capacities, as well as criminality. Possibly some of the most prevalent black individuals on television are athletes and rappers, that latter of whom then-Senator Barack Obama stated, “move our young people powerfully.” Given that poor children–many of whom are black– watch significantly more television than their peers, the types of people they see on television play a more imperative role in their process of socialization.

Media also plays a role in reinforcing the criminality of black males. Stephen Balkaran describes this bluntly saying, “media have divided the working class and stereotyped young African-American males as gangsters or drug dealers.” The portrayal of black males as criminals is already destructive enough in the context of news and film, but it becomes further amplified when artists choose to focus on themes which are criminal in content.

These three identities are not mutually exclusive, making it difficult to eradicate one without eradicating the other. This is observable with rappers who also serve as gangster icons, or black athletes who emulate criminals and rappers themselves. Making distinctions between the three becomes exceedingly difficult, as they are in some ways monolithic and unified; seemingly cornerstones of black culture.

Yet the individuals who embody each precept hardly pay the price, because they are rich, successful, and most of all, lucky. It’s the young teen who attempted to act out the rap lyrics to his favorite song that gets tried as an adult, and it is the 25-year-old former high school basketball star who gets stuck working a low wage job who ultimately suffer. Therein lays the deceptiveness of media portrayal of the three principles. These figures on television are conspicuously wealthy and successful, yet when young impressionable teens attempt to emulate the behavior, they end up disappointed and disadvantaged.

Conclusion

No one is suggesting that a complete rejection of athletics or musical pursuits is necessary or welcomed. Obviously music and athletics are essential components of black culture and of American culture, generally. However, according to this theory of the black identity, the black community may need to recognize that the ubiquitous emulation of athletic ventures, music, and criminality, is not helpful.

In the face of the widespread institutional racism that continues to pervert Americans culture and disadvantage blacks, a more inclusive definition of blackness is needed–one which leaves room for black intellectuals and professionals to serve as apt role models. Once children expand their horizon and realize they are not limited to a binary decision, we will begin to see a widespread economic ascension in the black community that is advantageous to all members of society. America is a multicultural society and there exists social tensions; but no group rises or falls on its own accord.

Resources

Primary

Stanford Ethics of Development in a Global Environment: Portrayal of Minorities in the Film, Media and Entertainment Industries

Cornell: African-American Music as Rebellion: From Slavesong to Hip-Hop

Wesleyan University: Racial Stereotypes From the Days of American Slavery: A Continuing Legacy

Darwin’s Athletes: How Sport Has Damaged Black America and Preserved the Myth of Race

              History is a Weapon: Slavery and Prison – Understanding the Connections

Additional

              History is a Weapon: Slavery and Prison – Understanding the Connections

CBS News: Barack Obama Clarifies Views On Rap

Huffington Post: Watching TV Can Lower Children’s Self Esteem, Study Finds

The Atlantic: The Data Are Damning: How Race Influences School Funding

NCAA: Probability of Competing in Sports Beyond High School

Mother Jones: Obama Encourages Students to Abandon Hopes of Becoming Great Rappers

    City Journal: How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back

John Phillips

John Phillips studied political science at the George Washington University. His interest are vast, but pertain mostly to politics, both international and domestic, philosophy, and law. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Legacy of the Past? Slavery’s Impact on Modern Black Identity appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most notable themes of Wednesday’s debate was the outward hostility that the candidates expressed toward the moderators and the media in general. We often hear about politicians criticizing the media, but why exactly do they do it and why does it elicit such a positive response?

Before we get into peoples’ perception of the media, I first need to address the fact that existing research has found very little evidence of actual media bias. When I first wrote about the debate, I noted that a review of nearly 59 studies conducted over a long period of time did not find notable evidence of bias in newspapers or news magazines. While some bias could be seen in television news broadcasts, that amount was generally insignificant. It is important to note that general news coverage is different from editorials and commentators’ discussions of news events, which are decidedly more opinionated.

A general explanation for claims of media bias is the widely accepted concept of the “hostile media effect,” which involves people’s perception of media coverage that they disagree with. Particularly when it comes to those with very strong opinions on an issue, people tend to perceive media coverage as biased against them, even when no evidence of bias in the coverage exists. Put simply, people on both sides of the ideological spectrum can perceive the same coverage as biased against them.

The recent trend of distrust among conservatives may also be explained by their notable dissatisfaction with the mainstream media. According to the Pew Research Center’s “Political Polarization & Media Habits” report, conservatives are much more likely to consume and trust conservative media than any other source. People who are mostly and consistently conservative are more likely to watch Fox News than any other source while those on the other end of the spectrum consume news from a wider range of sources. Fox News is generally considered to be a right-leaning network, in its news coverage but particularly when it comes to the network’s commentators. I note this not to make a judgment of many conservatives’ media habits, but to point out the important differences between the sources of information conservative individuals trust in comparison to liberals.

Gallup’s recent trust in the mass media poll indicates that Americans in general have relatively low trust in the media. In fact, the most recent survey shows that only about 40 percent of Americans have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the mass media–a record low. While this is true for most Americans, it is particularly true among Republicans and Independents, as 32 and 33 percent expressed similar levels of trust in the media, respectively. In contrast, 55 percent of Democrats trust the media a great deal or a fair amount. These results also mirror a larger trend in public opinion, as Americans are generally less trusting of many U.S. institutions than in other points in history.

In the crowded Republican primary campaign, where candidates need to appeal more to the conservative base of primary voters than the general public, criticism of the mainstream media is particularly resonant. This trend could also be compounded by the conservative media’s general disdain for the mainstream media. An example of that is Ted Cruz’ post-debate interview with Fox News commentator Sean Hannity. In the interview, Cruz reiterated his claim of bias in the mainstream media and Hannity strongly agreed with his characterization. They both emphasized the hostile environment that the CNBC moderators created and noted how that reflects the media’s treatment of conservatives in general. Finally, Cruz called for a debate that would be moderated by outspoken conservatives like Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin.

One question that has not yet been answered is exactly why Americans, particularly conservatives, dislike the mainstream media. Is it because of repeated attacks from politicians, which happen on both sides of the aisle, or are the politicians merely reflecting public sentiment? That question may be impossible to answer, but it’s pretty clear that both the public and elected officials are playing off of each others’ distrust in the news media. As the distrust grows continues, the trend may not bode well for the press’ ability to hold elected leaders accountable.

Read More: Comedy or Cable: Where do Americans Get Their News?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Do Politicians Attack the Media? appeared first on Law Street.

The American Bill of Rights includes some fundamental freedoms to which we all, as American citizens, are entitled. One of them is called “Freedom of the Press.” It’s a freedom we may take for granted; it’s easy to assume that a nation whose President is often dubbed “the leader of the free world” also has the freest press; however, this year the United States ranked #49 out of 180 nations on Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index 2015.

Reporters Without Borders explains its goal as follows:

The aim of the index is to measure freedom of information in 180 countries. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists, news media and netizens (Internet citizens) enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. It should not be seen as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned.

The top ten on the list were Finland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand, Austria, Canada, Jamaica, and Estonia. The lowest ten were Eritrea, North Korea, Turkemenistan, Syria, China, Vietnam, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, and Laos.

The rankings include both quantitative and qualitative data. In order to compile the list, Reporters Without Borders “scores” nations based on seven criteria categories:

• Pluralism: Are different opinions present in the media?
• Media Independence: Does the media function independently of other spheres of influence?
• Environment and Self-Censorship: What sort of journalistic environment is there in the nation?
• Legislative Framework: What sorts of laws govern the news?
• Transparency: How transparent are the institutions that produce the news?
• Infrastructure: How strong are the institutions that produce the news and what support do they have?
• Abuse: What is the violence and harassment toward those in the media like?

This format allows Reporters Without Borders to create a “score” for each nation; the lower the better. A score of 0-15 points shows a “Good Situation;” 15.01-25 points is a “Satisfactory Situation;” 25.01-35 points indicates “Noticeable Problems;” 35.01-55 points is a “Difficult Situation;” and 55.01-100 points is a “Very Serious Situation.” The United States scored a 24.41, so barely in the “Satisfactory Situation” category.

The United States’ place on the list at 49 is tied for the lowest its ever been–it was also 49 in 2007. Last year, the U.S. was three places higher. Reporters Without Borders explained the drop, stating:

In the Americas, the United States (49th, down three places) continues its decline. In 2014, the New York Times journalist James Risen came under government pressure to reveal his sources. Although the Obama administration backed away in that case, it continues its war on information in others, such as WikiLeaks.

Reporters Without Borders also cited the American treatment of Edward Snowden as another reason for the U.S.’s slip down the list. In addition, the treatment of the press in hostile situations, such as the environment in Ferguson, Missouri after the shooting of Michael Brown, was a reason for concern.

The United States’ commitment to Freedom of the Press doesn’t appear to go as far as it could. It’s concerning–hopefully some positive changes will be made in the New Year and we’ll move further up the list when the next rankings are released.

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 U.S. Drops to 49th Place For Global Freedom of the Press appeared first on Law Street.

Just over 24 hours after the attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the search for the attackers wages on. The two main suspects are brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi, both in their early thirties. They are French citizens who visited Syria this summer, although whether they had any connections to terrorist groups while there is unclear.

UPDATE: Two Charlie Hebdo Suspects Last Seen In Northern French Town #ParisShootings – http://t.co/sE6VO1lIQV pic.twitter.com/tXl0ulo6ZA

— MV Ortega (@MVOrtega1) January 8, 2015

Cherif Kouachi has had legal problems before; he was convicted of helping funnel fighters to Iraq.  There was originally thought to be a third man, an 18 year old, working with them, but he has since turned himself in, and reports say that he’s the brother-in-law of one of the main suspects. French media is now questioning his involvement.

After fleeing Paris, the Kouachi brothers are believed to have held up a gas station, stealing food and fuel. They may have also shot a police officer in a Parisian suburb, but that’s unconfirmed at this point. 

The manhunt has now turned to the areas north of Paris. A town called Crépy-en-Valois, to the northeast of Paris, has become the focus, as reports speculate that the Kouachi brothers are holed up in some sort of home or other building. While it appears that police are narrowing in, the search is by no means over. 

Meanwhile, acts of support and defiance have been seen all over the city, the country, and the world at large. Other journalists, cartoonists, and members of the media reacted in solidarity yesterday, for example: 

Cartoonists draw in solidarity with #CharlieHebdo: http://t.co/uWJgT9BUQG pic.twitter.com/EXixSDAHnx — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) January 8, 2015

RT @Beltrew: A few of the best cartoons drawn & shared in solidarity with #CharlieHebdo after yesterday’s massacre pic.twitter.com/4Dq68GL9mT — Anton La Guardia (@AntonLaGuardia) January 8, 2015

12 powerful political cartoons responding to the Charlie Hebdo attack http://t.co/neUlubZmW9pic.twitter.com/Pb8fErXv5t

— Vox (@voxdotcom) January 8, 2015

Amazingly, Charlie Hebdo has announced that it is going to go to print next week as planned, according to one of its columnists, Dr. Patrick Pelloux. Despite the fact that eight of the staff members were killed, including editor-in-chief Stephane Charbonnier, those who survived plan to honor their memory by showing that those who attacked did not win.

And not only will the publication print, it will print even more than usual. The normal Charlie Hebdo circulation is around 60,000–it plans on printing one million copies for this issue. It will, however, be half the length of a regular issue.

Google and French newspaper publishers are donating money to help print the issue. The distributors are not planning on charging Charlie Hebdo for their services. Pelloux said the following about the decision to move forward:

It’s very hard. We are all suffering, with grief, with fear, but we will do it anyway because stupidity will not win.

These acts of bravery, of solidarity, and of support prove that.

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 Day Two: Manhunt for Shooters in Charlie Hebdo Tragedy appeared first on Law Street.

A bomb went off at a Colorado chapter of the NAACP yesterday. The office is located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and although there were no injuries or deaths reported, there was minor damage to the offices, as well as to a hair salon located in the same building. The FBI has announced that it believes that the bomb was “deliberate.”

What exactly that means, however, no one is completely sure. The FBI has said that it could have been some sort of domestic terrorism, but they’re not able to be sure yet. Amy Sanders, media coordinator for the Denver office said:

Certainly domestic terrorism is one possibility, among many others. We are investigating all potential motives at this time.

Members of the NAACP have hinted that it could it have been a hate crime. Sandra Yong, President of the Denver Chapter of the NAACP said:

This certainly raises questions of a potential hate crime. But at this point we’re still gathering information. It’s a very sad situation, but we’re happy our people in Colorado Springs are safe.

She also stated that her branch:

Stands tall with the community of Colorado Springs in rejecting an attempt to create fear, intimidation and racial divisiveness. Although this is an active investigation, one thing is clear: This is an act of domestic terrorism.

However, the President of the Colorado Springs NAACP chapter, Henry Allen Jr., said on Tuesday after the incident that he wasn’t ready to call it a hate crime.

So, what exactly happened? What we know is that witnesses heard a booming sound around 10:45am and then saw smoke. In addition, the side of the building where the NAACP office is located appeared to be burnt. The bomb has been called by many news sources “makeshift” or “homemade.” It was placed next to a gas can, but luckily did not cause the gas can to ignite or explode.

There is a person of interest in the investigation. He has been described as a white man in his forties who drove a dirty white pickup truck and had a license plate that was covered or obstructed in some way. One witness said that he looked on the heavier side, and that he was wearing a Carhartt type jacket.

While no one’s certain that it was the NAACP that was targeted, it seems like the most likely target for the bomb. Most onlookers have pointed out that the nearby hair salon probably wasn’t the target.

The bigger story that has seemed to come out of the incident was the media coverage, or more accurately, the lack thereof. While this happened yesterday, it didn’t really get covered on last night’s news lineup. According to ThinkProgress:

A ThinkProgress search of television databases suggests CNN gave one cursory report on the incident at 6:34 a.m., while MSNBC and Fox News appear to have not mentioned the incident on air since it happened. Other networks, including Headline News, (HDLN) mentioned the incident in the morning news.

There were obviously other big news stories happening at the same time–the start of open-season on Congress, for example–but it still seems like a possible domestic terrorist attack should have gotten more than a “cursory report.” The hashtag #NAACPBombing is trending on Twitter, where many are coming forth to say that the social media tag is the first time that they’ve heard about the bombing.

Seriously, we should all be questioning WHY it took a trending hashtag for us to learn about the #NAACPBombing. We know the answer though…

— Derrick Clifton (@DerrickClifton) January 7, 2015

Here’s all the best media coverage of the #NAACPBombing that I’ve seen so far –> pic.twitter.com/6AtGymj8Jk

— Eric Wolfson (@EricWolfson) January 7, 2015

Despite the fact that the manhunt is still underway in Paris for the men who committed a terrorist attack there this morning, it is a bit weird that there’s been little coverage of the NAACP incident.

Given that the suspect is still at large, one of the best ways to keep people on alert and on the lookout is to spread the news. While the proliferation through Twitter has been great, and an amazing look at the way in which the internet has made it so much easier to communicate, it’s not quite enough.

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 NAACP in Colorado Bombed: No Injuries But Also No Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

Racism still exists in America. I see it every day, and having the increasingly common experience of being a white minority in the city I live in, I know that racism is not merely restricted to Caucasians. Yeah, I said it. Every race can be racist. Every race has stereotypes associated with other ethnicities, and every race has prejudices against those ethnicities based on years of perceived oppression. It does not matter if you are Caucasian, African, Asian, Mexican, or South American–you have experienced racism at some point in your life.

But the race issue is exacerbated by the media and by those who think racism is simply one-sided, i.e. white against every other color. Which is why cases like what happened in Ferguson, frankly, piss me off.

I agree that police officers should be held accountable their actions, and my thoughts are with Michael Brown’s parents, as no one should have to lose a child. But as their story spread and grew it became less and less about a cop shooting an 18 year old 12 times and more about a white man shooting a black man. Thieves and looters, under the guise of “protest” took the opportunity the media gave them and began destroying property, stealing, becoming physically violent toward police officers and each other, all in the name of justice for a black teenager. The protests fueled the media frenzy and the whole cycle repeated and blew up.

Again, Brown’s actions in the surveillance video above, which was taken from just prior to him being killed, do not justify him getting shot a dozen times. But painting him–as some stories did–as a martyr and a saint is a serious over-exaggeration. Yet citizens of Ferguson took the race part of the story–not the legal part–and made him their mascot.

We will never know for certain what happened that day after Brown left the store. What I can assume, though, is that if the officer responsible had been African American, we would not have heard about it. If Officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown had both been white, we would not have heard about it. Had the races been reversed–black officer shoots white teen–you can bet shit would have hit the fan just the same.

The truth is, according to the 2013 FBI Crime Report: 83 percent of white homicide victims were killed by other whites. Ninety percent of black homicide victims were killed by other blacks. We don’t hear about those cases. The reason this homicide got so much attention? Race. Plain and simple. It would have been more understandable if the news and the protests had focused on a cop abusing his power, but that is not the story we got. Police officers, historically, have often gotten away with things that would have been illegal for regular citizens, regardless of race. Why couldn’t the news have focused on that injustice?

Michael Brown’s story got blown out of proportion. Criminals used his name as an excuse for heinous acts, we were hounded for months with news stories focusing on never-ending protests of criminal behavior, and his parents were left to mourn by dealing with the violence committed in their son’s name. Violence they did not and do not condone. All this because the police officer happened to be white.

Racism is a problem, but to help alleviate that problem we have to stop assuming that every act one race commits against another is rooted in prejudice. We have to stop assuming that Caucasians are the only people who still associate certain races with certain stereotypes. We have to stop calling each other “white” or “black.” Acknowledge one another as people, not as a skin color, and the country can finally be rid of this horrible practice.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Racism: It’s on All of Us appeared first on Law Street.

In such a celebrity-obsessed society, famous peoples’ identities are sometimes co-opted for other reasons. However, American law does protect identities, to some extent, through something called “the right of publicity.” Read on to find out about whether the laws we have in place to protect rights of publicity are adequate or lacking.

What is the right of publicity?

The right of publicity protects a person’s right to control the commercial use of elements of his or her identity e.g. their name, voice, or likeness. It allows individuals whose identities have been misappropriated to bring civil claims against the offending entities. In several estates, it extends beyond the death of the relevant individuals, enabling their estate or heirs to bring infringement claims on their behalf.

However, the nature and extent of publicity rights protections varies from state to state. For example, Indiana allows publicity rights claims to be brought for misappropriation of an individual’s “name, voice, signature, photograph, image, likeness, distinctive appearance, gestures or mannerisms.” Rights in these identity elements are protected up to 100 years after the individual’s death. Indiana grants uncommonly expansive publicity rights protection. Because there is no federal right of publicity and there are many differences in protection among the states, many publicity rights claimants often resort to forum shopping. That means that they figure out what court or jurisdiction they think will be friendliest to their case, and bring the case there.

The possibility of forum shopping creates a  “race to the bottom” of the First Amendment ladder. Given the vast reach of entertainment content due to electronic broadcasting and the internet, content providers have to tailor their broadcasts to the rules of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in order to protect themselves from publicity rights claims. Because social media allows so many permutations of appropriating elements of a person’s identity, the range of actions that can infringe on publicity rights is not entirely clear.  Moreover, in many jurisdictions, the publicity rights laws have not developed enough to keep pace with the increasing possibilities of infringement created by the ability to use the internet.

Who thinks the current laws are adequate?

Proponents of the adequacy of current publicity rights laws argue that claims about the need for a federal publicity right are ill-informed because the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1125) already creates federal standards for publicity rights claims. This act allows plaintiffs to file a federally based claim for infringement. Also, the differences in state publicity laws reflect the needs of different jurisdictions. The fact that certain states do not have such laws may reflect a reasoned and considered policy determination of their legislatures and federalizing the right may undercut those legislative policy needs. Moreover, such a law would infringe on states’ rights to determine which claims may be brought in their courts. If the federal publicity right preempts the state laws, then it could easily overprotect some publicity rights and under-protect others. A uniform federal law couldn’t possibly account for the nuances of different states’ needs with respect to publicity rights. Furthermore, claimants often have difficultly forum shopping because many states have choice of law rules that determine where claims need to be litigated.

What’s the argument to change the laws?

Opponents of the adequacy of the current realm of publicity rights assert that a federal publicity right would be Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Publicity rights affect a number of issues relating to interstate commerce including what can be broadcast over several channels such as radio, television, and the internet. The rights affect multi-state advertising campaigns and the distribution of products between states as well. Furthermore, forum shopping makes it difficult for promoters to know when their actions will open them up to liability because it is not realistically possible for businessmen to cover themselves against 50 different jurisdictions’ rules and still effectively run business. This is especially true when a dead person’s rights are involved and the infringement claim involves media that is broadcast nationwide.

Even the claims under the Lanham Act are limited because federal law is interpreted differently in different geographic federal circuit jurisdictions and federal court decisions are not binding on the state courts within their jurisdiction. Moreover, the concept of what constitutes a person’s “likeness” varies between states so protected identity elements in one state may not be protected in another.  A federal publicity right statute may solve this problem but the current law does not. Furthermore, publicity rights laws are not always evolving at a pace commensurate with the increasing capabilities of potential infringers.

Conclusion

Publicity laws have run into some problems as the years go on. One big issue is the inconsistency between different states and jurisdictions, and the publicity laws they implement. Another issue is the proliferation of the internet specifically and technology in general. With the resources we now have, it’s entirely possible to create a facsimile of someone’s identity, particularly through tools like social media and photoshop. It’s important that we make sure that people remain in control of their own identities, without infringing on creativity. The current laws are apt in some ways, but could use some updating.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: Lanham Act

Additional

JD Supra: The Federalism Case Against a Federal Right to Publicity

Georgetown Law Journal: The Inalienable Right of Publicity

NY State Bar Association: Why a Reasonable Right of Publicity Should Survive Death: A Rebuttal

University of Georgia Law: Race to the Stars: A Federalism Argument for Leaving the Right of Publicity in the Hands of the States

Amy E. Mitchell, PLLC: Personality Rights

Chapman Law Review: Intellectual Property Expansion: The Good, The Bad, and the Right of Publicity

American Bar Association: Why a Federal Right of Publicity Statute is Necessary

International Trademark Association: Board Resolutions U.S. Federal Right of Publicity

IP Watchdog: The Right of Publicity: A Doctrine Gone Wild?

LegalZoom: What to Know About Rights of Publicity

Right of Publicity: State Statutes

Cornell University Law School: Right of Publicity Overview

Right of Publicity: Brief History of the Right or Publicity

Library of Congress: Privacy and Publicity Rights

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Publicity Law: The Line Between Creativity and Identity Theft appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier today, I was fortunate enough to watch and listen to a webinar hosted by the Chief Strategy Officer of Mashable.com, Adam Ostrow. The webinar, hosted at the American Association of Publishers, focused on how Mashable has been so successful, so quickly, in the online media field, and Ostrow’s insights were incredibly enlightening.

Mashable has been around for less than 10 years–it was launched in 2005 by a young Scottish man named Pete Cashmore. It began as a classic low-funded start-up. Its employees worked virtually, and given time differences between the U.S. and the U.K. were able to present content almost 24/7. Now, Mashable is well recognized as a force to be reckoned with in the online arena. According to Ostrow’s presentation today, some sort of Mashable content is now shared an average of three times per second.

Ostrow’s focus today was to explain how they got there–what sort of ingenuity and creative thinking was required to turn Mashable into such a viral phenomenon. A lot of it involved Mashable’s ability to utilize the digital culture that is becoming increasingly pervasive in American society, especially among young people. As Ostrow put it:

It's 2014, "#digital culture IS mainstream culture" @mashable @adamostrow @PSP_at_AAP

— Law Street (@LawStreetMedia) October 10, 2014

He’s absolutely right–we are more connected than we ever were before. We work, socialize, and interact constantly through our smart phones and social networks–why shouldn’t we get our news and other desired content the exact same way?

That’s exactly what Mashable thought too, and it’s worked. In 2014, roughly 50 percent of their users have accessed the site through mobile technology. On another interesting note, 50 percent also get to the site through some sort of social media platform. While those numbers are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they are telling. As a millennial, they’re almost directly representative of how I got a large chunk of my news–scrolling through my Twitter feed on my phone.

That brings us to another important part of Ostrow’s presentation–Mashable got into the market by taking advantage of changes in the media world, but they also realized they would be remiss to not stay abreast of changes that continue to happen. Ostrow highlighted a few–things like smartwatches are starting to become legitimate considerations, for example. One thing that really struck me was the fact that Mashable has a a position entitled “Dedicated Snapchat Storyteller.” That’s incredible, given that Snapchat was just released in 2011. So much of today’s society moves so quickly–our media sites are smart to jump on trends and incorporate them into their business models.

So Mashable is very successful, to be sure…but how do they make their money? That was another part of Ostrow’s presentation, and like Mashable in general, their money-making strategy was something that we probably wouldn’t have even known about just a short time ago. It’s called native advertising, or sponsored content, and it’s a model that is becoming increasingly popular on the web. There are a few different ways to do it, but essentially what it means is that a particular advertiser provides content that fits into the context of the site, in the form of blogs or articles, or some other platform. In the case of Mashable, some of their sponsored content partners include American Express, Staples, and Gap, among others. Like the rest of what Mashable is doing, sponsored content is smart because it tailors itself to what we, as millennials want. Smart content with context appeals way more to us than print ads, or even classic advertisements.

Overall, it was an incredibly interesting presentation–if you’re looking for more coverage, make sure to check out the Law Street Media Twitter feed. Mashable’s innovation is impressive, and their insights equally so.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Coghlan via Flickr]

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 Mashable is Changing the Way Media Works appeared first on Law Street.

By now you’ve probably heard about the unusual-colored suit President Obama wore to a press conference last week. Everyone seemed to have something to say about it. But as unflattering as the suit appeared, I think people are failing to see the real issue at hand, which the suit even helped to illustrate: our president has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to the current issues at hand in foreign policy.

By wearing this particular tan suit, the president basically let the country know that he has simply given up. The suit washed out his complexion just like Russia and ISIS have washed him out, so to speak. When asked about his plans for Iraq, he merely replied, “We don’t have a strategy yet.”

Throughout his statement, despite being asked directly what his plans are, Obama seems to beat the bush giving vague answers about a plan that he has to make in the future. While it’s understandable that he doesn’t want to give out any information that’s not yet necessarily set in stone, foreign conflicts such as the ones at hand require crucial timing. If he waits too long to make a plan it may be too late, potentially costing a significant number of lives.

This is hardly the first time that the president has caused controversy with his sartorial choices. From his very first days in office, the public was up in arms over his decision to bare his shirt sleeves in the oval office. While he may have wanted to be the cool and casual president at the beginning of his presidency, the tan suit seemed to have gone a little too far. They say clothes make the man, and in this case the clothes made the man look defeated.

Granted, I would love to give the president props for straying away from the standard black suits politicians typically wear, after all it is the year 2014. However, there is a time and place for everything. A conference regarding the current state of war in Iraq and serious foreign threats our country faces from Russia is hardly the time to take a new fashion risk. Perhaps the president should’ve saved the khaki suit for a stroll in the Hamptons over the holiday weekend.

In the grand scope of things, it really doesn’t matter what the president is wearing, but rather the message he has to deliver to our country. The media’s reaction to his suit was certainly blown out of proportion, but I still think it is interesting how the suit’s color seemed to coincide with the overall tone of the president’s statement. There’s certainly no law dictating that the president must exclusively wear black suits, but if there were would the message have been received by the public in the same way? Obama has made several poor decisions throughout his presidency and that morning, his poor sense of judgement seemed to carry through to his wardrobe choices, as well.

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 Obama’s Tan Suit Proves He Has Given Up appeared first on Law Street.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between Christians and atheists this summer. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued the IRS for allowing a church to preach about political issues during services. As religious organizations like churches can have tax-exempt status, they are forbidden from making recommendations about political candidates. While the atheists’ suit was settled, the debate remains far from over. The intersection of American religion and politics is complicated to say the least. From personal appeals to Supreme Court cases, it is hard to find more controversial issues than those involving both church and state. But we should not ignore the topic; rather, it should be tackled head on.

Anti-religious sentiment, or at least sentiment against religion in the public sphere, is alive and virulent. David Silverman, the President of the American Atheists, said that the American “political system is rife with religion and it depends too much on religion and not enough on substance. Religion is silly and religion has components that are inherently divisive. …There is no place for any of that in the political system.”

The American Atheists are at least 4,000 members strong; the FFRF has over 19,000 members who subscribe to the belief that “[t]he history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.” Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Betty Friedan, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. may disagree. American slavery was countered by devout abolitionists like Sojourner Truth. The movement would not have been the same had it not been for those leaders who saw slavery as simply not Christian. The British colonies in America partially owe their origins to the religious movement of the day. People “free from religion” cannot be called superior in Western progressive movements.

Atheism itself is not the issue. But claiming a moral superiority over religious people based solely on their religiousness is a mistake. This extends to the political sphere. Not because any nation should necessarily adopt theocratic tendencies, but because we should treat religion as a social institution rather than a political taboo. Marriage, education, families, and the economy are each social institutions brought up frequently in political discussions. Beyond that, some of the most popular rhetoric connects different institutions to one another; the White House website says that “President Obama is committed to creating jobs and economic opportunities for families across America.” Republican Marco Rubio’s website claims that “Senator Rubio believes there are simple ideas that Washington should pursue in order to improve education in America and prepare our children for the jobs of tomorrow.” Families, jobs, children, and education are all important in American society. They can also be highly personal and emotional when included in our political discourse; what really makes them so different from religion as a social institution?

To the liberals, even if you don’t buy into the idea that religion is an equally important social institution to others, you cannot deny that it shapes America’s politics, and therefore it deserves discussion. Every American president has been Christian and male, but could any liberal be taken seriously while arguing that we can’t talk about gender discrimination in our politics? Barack Obama is the only Black president of America’s forty four, but what Democrat could claim that we can’t talk about race in our politics? In this way, there is a deep hypocrisy in the liberal canon. Further, if religion in politics is shunned by everyone except for Christian conservatives, then the conversation will be dominated by them alone.

To the conservatives, look at the statistics. The Pew Research center shows that people who fall under the group “Protestant/Other Christian” (distinguished by Pew from Catholics and Mormons) voted for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama at a rate of 57 percent to 42 percent. This disparity is actually wider than it was during the 2008 election in which John McCain received 54 percent of the same group to Obama’s 45 percent. Jews in 2012 voted for Obama over Romney at a rate of 69 percent to 30 percent. The widest gaps are those within the groups “Religiously unaffiliated” and “Other faiths” who voted for Obama-Romney at rates of 70 percent – 26 percent and 74 percent – 23 percent, respectively. Reaching out to Latinos and Blacks is proving to be difficult, but there are plenty of non-Christian groups that the Republican party has largely overlooked.

Religion isn’t entirely absent from the political conversation, but where it is present, its place is static and stale. MSNBC will face off right-wing Christians who lambaste abortion and gay marriage against level-headed leftists. FOX News will pit religious people claiming family values against out-of-touch academics. When liberals eschew religious political discussion and conservatives only make room for their Christian constituents, the discussion doesn’t move anywhere. There is not only a need to have bring religion into the rest of our political discussion — to have faith in politics –but to remove it from its stereotypical and often misrepresentative position. Freedom of speech and religious freedom should flourish together with a substantial discussion that allows America to have faith in our politics.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Having Faith in Politics appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/faith-politics/feed/ 4 23714 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-2014/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-2014/#comments Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:42:34 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=23381

Check out Law Street's Top Law Schools for Entertainment Law in 2014.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Law Street Media|Top 10 Law schools for Entertainment Law 2014

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law.

Featured image courtesy of [Widener University School of Law via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-2014/feed/ 23 23381 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-4-ucla-school-of-law/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-4-ucla-school-of-law/#respond Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:38:32 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=23111

UCLA School of Law is one of the top law schools for Entertainment Law in 2014. Discover why this program is #4 in the country.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #4 UCLA School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Law Street Media| Top Entertainment Law Programs 2014| #4 UCLA School of Law

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Coolcaesar via Wikipedia]

 

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #4 UCLA School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-4-ucla-school-of-law/feed/ 0 23111 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-5-usc-gould-school-law/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-5-usc-gould-school-law/#respond Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:37:30 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=23113

USC Gould School of Law is one of the top law schools for Entertainment Law in 2014. Discover why this program is #5 in the country.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #5 USC Gould School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Law Street Media| Top Entertainment Law Programs 2014| #5 USC Gould School of Law

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Pbgr via Wikipedia]

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #5 USC Gould School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-5-usc-gould-school-law/feed/ 0 23113 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-6-fordham-law-school/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-6-fordham-law-school/#respond Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:36:30 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=23118

Fordham Law School is one of the top law schools for Entertainment Law in 2014. Discover why this program is #6 in the country.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #6 Fordham Law School appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Law Street Media|Top Entertainment Law Programs 2014| #6 Fordham Law School

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [William Ward via Flickr]

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #6 Fordham Law School appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-6-fordham-law-school/feed/ 0 23118 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-7-new-york-university-school-of-law/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-7-new-york-university-school-of-law/#respond Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:35:43 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=23121

New York University School of Law is one of the top law schools for Entertainment Law in 2014. Discover why this program is #7 in the country.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #7 New York University School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Law Street Media|Top Entertainment Law Programs 2014| #7 New York University School of Law

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Jonathan71 via WikiMedia]

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #7 New York University School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-7-new-york-university-school-of-law/feed/ 0 23121 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-8-villanova-law-school/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-8-villanova-law-school/#respond Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:34:19 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=23125

Villanova Law School is one of the top law schools for Entertainment Law in 2014. Discover why this program is #8 in the country.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #8 Villanova Law School appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Law Street Media|Top Entertainment Law Programs 2014| #8 Villanova Law School

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of: [Alertjean via WikiMedia]

 

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #8 Villanova Law School appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-8-villanova-law-school/feed/ 0 23125 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-9-vanderbilt-university-law-school/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-9-vanderbilt-university-law-school/#respond Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:33:01 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=23128

Vanderbilt University Law School is one of the top law schools for Entertainment Law in 2014. Discover why this program is #9 in the country.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #9 Vanderbilt University Law School appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Law StreetMedia|Top Entertainment Law Programs 2014|#9 Vanderbilt University Law School

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of: [15Everett via WikiMedia]

 

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #9 Vanderbilt University Law School appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-9-vanderbilt-university-law-school/feed/ 0 23128 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-10-stanford-law-school/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-10-stanford-law-school/#respond Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:32:55 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=23131

Stanford Law School is one of the top law schools for Entertainment Law in 2014. Discover why this program is #10 in the country.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #10 Stanford Law School appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Law Street Media|Top Entertainment Law Programs 2014| #10 Stanford Law School

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Jonathan Yu via Flickr]

 

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Entertainment Law: #10 Stanford Law School appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/schools/top-10-law-schools-entertainment-law-10-stanford-law-school/feed/ 0 23131 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/sarah-palin-has-her-own-tv-channel/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/sarah-palin-has-her-own-tv-channel/#comments Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:33:21 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=21748

Sarah Palin is fed up with the Liberal Media bias and is doing something about it. She started an online TV channel called the Sarah Palin Channel that's going to make Fox News look like MSNBC.

The post America, Sarah Palin Has Her Own TV Channel appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Sarah Palin is fed up with the Liberal Media bias and is doing something about it. She started an online TV channel called the Sarah Palin Channel that’s going to make Fox News look like MSNBC.

I’m scared too, Catelyn.

In the introduction video, Palin says this is going to be a news channel that is going to be a lot more than news: it will get around the “media filter” and “find solutions.” Reading between the lines, Palin is saying, “The media has filtered me out, so I had to start my own channel. And I want to share my solutions that were too crazy for FOX.” In the video Palin also says that her channel will cut through “Washington DC’s phony capitalism.” So I take that to mean she will continue to call Barack Obama a socialist, while refusing to look at the actual definition of socialism.

The channel will also have very engaging guests and while she did not mention any names, a clip of Ted Cruz campaigning was rolling in the background. I thoroughly look forward to their “Who hates Obama more” and “Because the Bible told me so” segments.

Also, there is good news if you were a fan of Sarah Palin’s reality TV show. The channel will also give viewers a glance into her family’s daily life. They are just like any other American family…that has a ton of money. Watching the Palins really allows you to see how she relates to all those average Joes (read: white people) she talks so much about. And I am sure she will argue that because of her close proximity to Russia, she knows better than anyone how to deal with Putin.

Of course, if this channel is going to be more than news, it might be looking for some TV show ideas. Well, the masses have taken to Twitter to help Palin with some ideas for brilliant television. Here are some of the best:

The Big Benghazi Theory #PalinTVShows

— Lizz Winstead (@lizzwinstead) July 28, 2014

I Love Lucy But Deport Ricky #PalinTVShows

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) July 28, 2014

America’s Funniest Stump Speeches #PalinTVShows

— CC:Indecision (@indecision) July 28, 2014

#palintvshows Everybody Loves Reagan

— James VanLaningham (@jdvanlaningham) July 28, 2014

One of the central themes of the channel, according to Palin, is that it’s about you. But there is one person the site focuses on much more than any other and I doubt that is the “you” Palin was referring to. This person is President Obama, and wow does he seem to be the main focus of the Sarah Palin Channel. Three of the seven stories on the site feature the President, and it even has a clock counting down to the end of the Obama administration. I am guessing it is a countdown to remind Palin when she will lose any relevance she might still have.

I’m laughing too, B-rock.

So in conclusion, Sarah Palin has her own TV channel because being a contributor on FOX News was too constraining for this maverick. The channel is supposedly about you, the viewer, but primarily focuses on Sarah Palin, her family, and Obama. And sadly, just in case you had any hope that this was a joke, this is not Tina Fey parodying Palin — though it can be very hard to tell the difference.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [eskimojoe via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America, Sarah Palin Has Her Own TV Channel appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/sarah-palin-has-her-own-tv-channel/feed/ 3 21748 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/abortion-rates-are-down-but-why-does-your-news-outlet-say-that-is/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/abortion-rates-are-down-but-why-does-your-news-outlet-say-that-is/#respond Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:59:36 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=11369

Abortion rates in the US are at the lowest point since the procedure was legalized in 1973. Between 2008 and 2011, the rate of abortions nationwide decreased by 13 percent, and according to a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, there are several explanations contributing to this downward trend. Researchers noted that the decreasing abortion rate coincided […]

The post Abortion Rates Are Down, But Why Does Your News Outlet Say That Is? appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Abortion rates in the US are at the lowest point since the procedure was legalized in 1973. Between 2008 and 2011, the rate of abortions nationwide decreased by 13 percent, and according to a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, there are several explanations contributing to this downward trend. Researchers noted that the decreasing abortion rate coincided with a general decrease in the number of pregnancies and births in the US, an increase in contraception access, and the general effects of the recession. Significantly, the study did not find a correlation between the lower rates and restrictive state policies on abortions. For instance, some of the states included in the remarkably lower rates of abortion were California and New York, states that do not have very restrictive abortion laws. 

These findings are very interesting, but what is really important about the research is how it is handled by the media. The differences between the sources reporting on this study provide an excellent example of the subtle techniques news outlets use to impact the opinion of their audiences.

Here is Fox News‘ rendition of the story.

 

Although Fox claims to be ‘fair and biased’, it is pretty well known that Fox News is right leaning. The article correctly reports the published data from the Institute, but also includes certain additions to the piece that speak to the ability of news sources to include an ideological slant. First, the outlet incorporates a picture of pro-life activists as if the decreased abortion rate has been attributed to the success of groups lobbying to restrict abortion, which is contradictory to the findings’ inability to correlate the implementation of states’ restrictive policies and the decrease in abortions.

Furthermore, the Fox article includes statements from leaders of pro-life organizations who were confident that the results of the findings meant that their efforts to discourage abortion were succeeding, despite the lack of supporting evidence. The article includes quotes from the presidents of the National Right to Life Committee and Americans United for Life, both of whom remain committed to the belief that the pro-life movement should be credited for the drop in abortions. On the contrary, there are no statements from a pro-choice organization. By only including the opinions of one point of view on the abortion issue, the Fox article fails to objectively report on the story.

Another conservative source, the New American, goes further in its article; it almost chastises the Institute’s study by failing to include data of abortion rates after many states in 2011 enacted new restrictive abortion policies. It also includes statements from pro-life affiliates who discuss the next steps in the fight for limiting abortion, which completely strays from the discussion of the study’s findings.

Compare that to the Daily Beast’s rendition of the study, which was largely in response to conservative positions on the story.

In this article, The Daily Beast clearly showcases its slant by not only featuring a picture of pro-choice activists, but by arguing that progressive efforts such as increased contraceptive access and sex education policies have a greater impact on the decreased abortion rate than policies limiting abortion clinics. While the study did find contraceptives to be a factor in the decreased abortion rate, the article fails to mention anything about the other variables listed by Guttmacher, which are crucial to the overall findings: decreased birthrate and the recession. The article takes only the pieces that fit well into their argument.

The Daily Beast’s liberal take on the story is echoed by Slate, which featured a picture of condoms and stated that the lower rate should be championed by pro-choicers.

Of course, freedom of the press allows the media to say what they want about different stories, and these sources did correctly display the Institute’s data. However, what the contrast of the sources shows is that readers need to be aware of potential bias depending on where they choose to get their information. True, it is pretty well known that Fox News and The Daily Beast have clear political ideologies. However, these blatant examples of the media’s tricks to slant their reporting highlights the importance of smart and careful reading. By providing visual images of a clear ideological stance on an issue as well as selectively including or deleting certain parts of the study, the different articles show the subtleties that they utilize to influence their readers or viewers.

Additionally, this example shows the importance of seeking out sources of one’s opposing viewpoint in order to get a different perspective and learn how the other side can view the same issue. In order to truly grasp the crux of the issue at hand, readers must be prepared to compare different media sources to really get the best information. 

[Guttmacher] [Fox News] [The Daily Beast] [New York Times] [Slate] [The New American]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [lalavnova via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Abortion Rates Are Down, But Why Does Your News Outlet Say That Is? appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/abortion-rates-are-down-but-why-does-your-news-outlet-say-that-is/feed/ 0 11369 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/the-jobs-blog/introducing-300voices-the-top-voices-in-law-and-policy/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/the-jobs-blog/introducing-300voices-the-top-voices-in-law-and-policy/#comments Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:33:31 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=11490

Law Street launched a new feature today — get excited, everyone! We’ve added #300Voices to the site, which is a curated hub of the top voices in law and policy. This Tweet Central brings together the best and brightest in the legal industry from the media, law schools and firms, and independent bloggers. We did something […]

The post Introducing #300Voices, the Top Voices in Law and Policy appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Law Street launched a new feature today — get excited, everyone! We’ve added #300Voices to the site, which is a curated hub of the top voices in law and policy. This Tweet Central brings together the best and brightest in the legal industry from the media, law schools and firms, and independent bloggers.

We did something very unique: Instead of focusing on institutions, businesses, and media outlets, we turned our attention to the people whose voices make up the dynamic legal industry. You can enjoy scrolling through up-to-the minute tweets about the most important legal news of the day from your favorite contributors.

#300Voices is as ever evolving as the topics we cover and we’re offering a unique chance for our readers and followers to contribute to this list. We want you to nominate your favorite media contributors, professors, and bloggers on Twitter — all the legal voices that are essential to your daily life. Tweet us your nominations @LawStreetMedia using the hashtag #300Voices and we will choose new contributors as their influence and relevance grow. Click here to view full nomination details and instructions.

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

 

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Introducing #300Voices, the Top Voices in Law and Policy appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/the-jobs-blog/introducing-300voices-the-top-voices-in-law-and-policy/feed/ 2 11490 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/issues/entertainment-and-culture/should-criminal-trials-be-televised/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/issues/entertainment-and-culture/should-criminal-trials-be-televised/#respond Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:44:45 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=7794

Sensational criminal trials on TV are becoming the norm, from OJ Simpson to Jodi Arias. But should they be? Find out the arguments surrounding this debate.

The post Criminal Trials on TV: What’s the Verdict? appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Image courtesy of [Sarah Sphar via Flickr]

It was the event that no one could stop talking about between 1994 and 1995. Everyone around the country was glued to the television to see what would happen to O.J. Simpson, once-beloved celebrity and accused murderer. Before O.J., there were televised trials of Ted Bundy, the Menendez Brothers, and Jeffrey Dahmer, among others. And since O.J., we’ve televised quite a few high profile trials. For celebrity buffs, Lindsey Lohan’s streamed on TMZ. There was, of course, the horrifying Casey Anthony case that captured national attention during the summer of 2011. Most recently, spectators were able to watch the Jodi Arias and George Zimmerman proceedings from their homes.

In fact, media streams of famous court cases have become rather ubiquitous in American culture. But should they be? We’ve turned everything from Congressional debate to young children in beauty pageants into must-see TV. Should trials be the same way? Read on to learn about the debate over televising trials, and the arguments for and against allowing cameras into courtrooms.

---

 What are the rules about filming trials?

In the United States, the general rule is that photography and broadcasting of criminal trials in federal courts is banned but can be overridden by a law or another court rule. Many judges decided to ban broadcasting and photography from courtrooms after the O.J. Simpson trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that televising trials is not a violation of constitutional due process.  In certain cases, jury deliberations are publicly broadcasted. The broadcasting of criminal trials is very controversial and even the Senate Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Supreme Court have differing views about its propriety.

---

 What’s the argument for putting criminal trials on TV?

Proponents of televising criminal trials assert various arguments, including that since many Americans have no personal experience with the criminal justice system and many learn about current events entirely from television, televising criminal trials is vital to individuals’ understanding of the legal system.  U.S. Senator Charles Schumer stated that:

Courts are an important part of our government, and the more our government institutions are shown to the public, the more dignified they become, and the more the public comes to understand them. Allowing cameras into our courtrooms will help demystify them and let the public evaluate how well the system works.

Furthermore, a Colorado Supreme Court Justice argued that religious worship and ceremonies are televised and there is no public consensus that religious practices are denigrated when broadcast so there is no reason to assume that the legal process will be.

Even if being televised can make witnesses nervous, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Nervousness makes potential discrepancies and inaccuracies easier to notice and reluctant witnesses can be persuaded by the legal action that brings them to court e.g. police escort and subpoenas. Finally, though there is an ongoing study, there is no evidence that televising criminal cases has more impact on a criminal trial than the presence of an audience, which is generally permitted.

---

What’s the argument against televising trials?

Opponents of televising criminal trials argue that it creates numerous procedural difficulties that waste the court’s time and may prejudice the defendant. These include the necessity of judges monitoring the manner of the broadcasting. It is also difficult to sequester juries to prevent them from watching the trial on TV. Broadcasting trials makes it more difficult to impanel an impartial jury if a second trial is necessary. There is an increased need for marshals and being broadcast has a significant mental effect on witnesses, jurors, and court officers.

If criminal trials are televised then they become spectacles for the public and the solemnity and dignity of the judiciary will be compromised for the sake of entertainment. For example, after an expert witness testified in Jodi Arias’ case, she was attacked online and the media coverage could have possibly swayed what weight was given to her testimony.

Televising the conduct of judges and lawyers creates a virtually universal conflict of interest within the court system. The Court’s officers will be tempted to consider their television appearance in addition to the needs of their client. It is even possible that a lawyer could weigh his interest in having an attractive TV appearance higher than his duty to his client. Lawyers may try risky strategies in order to impress a potential television market, and judges may behave in ways that are most conducive to their political aspirations even if they are not warranted by the law. If a highly controversial criminal trial (e.g. the George Zimmerman trial) is televised and the verdict is not popular with a significant portion of the public, then an officer of the court or juror could be a target of disgruntled viewers.

---

Conclusion

We now have the ability to broadcast basically whatever we want. Trials are public for the most part–family, friends, and others who know or do not know the parties are often able to go and observe the proceedings. Televising trials allows everyone to have that access to the justice system, and promotes transparency and understanding. That being said, broadcasting trials and the resulting media coverage and analysis could have potential to affect the trial itself. While justice may very well be blind–should our knowledge of court cases be? It’s not an easy question or an easy answer, but one that will have to be answered very soon.

---

Resources

Primary

U.S. Constitution: Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

Second Circuit Court of Appeals: Westmoreland v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

United States Courts: Cameras in Courts

Maryland Courts: Report of the Committee to Study Extended Media Coverage of Criminal Trial Proceedings in Maryland

Supreme Court: Chandler v. Florida

Additional

RTDNA: Cameras in the Court: A State-by-State Guide

WJBO: Televise Criminal Trials? Of Course?

Guardian: Televising the Courts: the Time Has Come

Voice of America: Chinese Courts Put More Criminal Trials Online

Townhall: Say No to Televised Trial

CJ Online: Time to Tune Out Televised Trials

Debate: Should Criminal Trials be Televised?

DebateWise: Cameras in Courtrooms

Examiner: Zimmerman Case Coverage Highlights Flaws in Media

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Criminal Trials on TV: What’s the Verdict? appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/issues/entertainment-and-culture/should-criminal-trials-be-televised/feed/ 0 7794