Results matching “us federal shie”

Lowell Bergmann is a ground breaking investigative reporter, a producer/correspondent for the PBS documentary series "Frontline" in the US and spent 14 years as a producer with CBS's "60 Minutes".

Bergman shared a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service with The New York Times in 2004 for "A Dangerous Business," (which detailed a record of egregious worker safety violations coupled with the systematic violation of environmental laws in the iron sewer and water pipe industry) and is a Professor at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Furthermore, he is a co-founder of the Centre for Investigative Journalism and a consultant at ProPublica, an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

The story of Bergman's investigation of the tobacco industry for 60 Minutes was chronicled in the 1999 Academy Award-nominated feature film "The Insider", in which Bergman was portrayed by Al Pacino (below left).

The Editors Weblog contacted Lowell Bergman - who was an early adopter and advocate of the multimedia model - to discover his views on the key issues facing investigative reporting and its future.

EW: What do you see in the future for investigative journalism? Do you still see it as having a home at newspapers?

LB: Investigative journalism in America has always been done by magazines and in books as well as in newspaper. For many years newspapers were not doing much of it. It was a 'freelance' occupation usually with writers like I.F. Stone and others who left newspapers because they were too restrictive. Personally, I have been using the web and been 'online' for more than a decade.

But it remains true that it is newspapers and traditional news organizations that produce almost all the new information everyday.

Pure web based operations with a few new exceptions recycle information they get from those organizations. We will see web based sites becoming the providers of more and more news and quality information in the future, but the transition will take time.

EB: What do you see as the key issue facing your profession?

LB: I am not sure it is a 'profession' in the traditional sense. In this country it is open to everyone. It is not licensed. Right now the transformation of the media endangers the collective experience of news people who chose to make gathering, investigating and presenting quality information their life work. That is why non-profits and educational institutions [Universities] will become more and more important. They do not have the same pressures. Its a time of transition, a kind of "Middle Age", that will not see a resurgence of real reporting until the economic questions are resolved.

EW: How has new media changed the way you work?

LB: Obviously, the availability of databases, newspaper archives and all sorts of information on the Web makes many things easier. But the old techniques and standards have not been replaced. To do investigative or in depth reporting you have take the time to meet people, and not meet them in a chat room.

Confidentiality on the internet is virtually impossible. It depends on trust. And trust is the weakest link in terms of the reliability of information offered up on the Web by so called 'new media'.

EW: Do you think there is more pressure from editors with the advent of the 24-hour news culture? Are investigative journalists getting the time and resources necessary?

LB: At a certain point you are a stenographer, if you don't have enough time to do the kind of reporting that advances what we know. This is not just true of 'investigative' reporters.

All good reporting involves asking some skeptical questions and not assuming what you are told is true. When I think of 'investigative reporting' I mean reporting in the public interest that looks deeply into a subject or story. Often it involves developing sources or hunting for documents or both and having the time to explore what they mean. At the same time in the best of all world's your editor is happy if you come back and say there is no story, or the story you originally went in pursuit of changed.

So, in answer to your question the pressure of a failing economic model by definition means there is less time. Prior to the decline of newspapers, broadcasters in the U.S. freed from the strictures around licensing that once forced them to present programming in the public interest along with operating with the threat of punishment created worldwide news gathering organizations. They had the incentive to do documentaries and present them even if the ratings were far below those of entertainment. That is no longer the case so you have less in depth reporting on the air as well.

EW: Is the law now having an impact on your profession? Is the law becoming more restrictive for journalists in general, and investigative journalists in particular?

LB: Not really. There has been a squeeze on the confidential source privilege, but it appears that Congress and a new President will sign a federal 'shield law'. The issues surrounding what is called national security reporting and/or criminal cases where a prosecutor or defendant has no where else to turn for information are unlikely to be resolved by the legislation. It is more of a question of the attitude/discretion of the prosecutors.

EW: Do you feel protected by the law?

LB: I never expect 'protection'. My sources do.

EW: How do you think an editor should best manage an investigative reporting team or reporter?

LB: Briefly, they should provide insight, encouragement and support, especially when the going gets tough.

EW: Who are the main competition to newspaper investigative reporters now? What are your thoughts on groups such as ProPublica?

This work is non profit. I have even called it 'anti-profit' by its very nature. So ProPublica, I am a consultant, or the Center for Investigative Reporting, I am one of the founders, are non profits working the public interest. Basically, that is what a very good newspaper newsroom does: report stories without fear or favor, and without considering the resources needed to do that. It is at its root a non-profit activity.

The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) conducted a survey this year that found that newsrooms have encountered the biggest loss of jobs in 30 years and that the percentage of minorities working in newsrooms is still disproportionate to the larger workforce.

The survey found:
- U.S. daily newsrooms shrank by 2,400 journalists in the past year, a "4.4% workforce decrease that's the biggest year-over-year cut in ranks since ASNE began conducting its annual census 30 years ago.
- 52,600 people work full-time in daily newspaper newsrooms. 1984 was the last time that number has been so low at 50,400, of whom 5.75% were journalists of racial or ethnic minorities.
- Nearly 300 fewer journalists of color are working in newsrooms than this time last year.
- But due to the layoffs and hiring freezes, the percentage of journalists of color in daily newsrooms actually grew by a tiny margin, to 13.52% from 13.43% of all journalists.
- "The largest number and percentage of journalists of color are black, with 2,790 or 5.3% of the workforce."
- There are 2,346 Hispanic journalists, 4.5% of newsrooms.
- Asian Americans are 3.2% of newsrooms at 1,692 journalists.
- Native Americans are the smallest minority group: 284 journalists or 0.5% of newsroom employees.
- Men still outnumber women in the daily newsroom by a 63% to 37% margin.
- Minority journalists are more likely to be reporters. Only 11.4% of supervisors are journalists of color.

In 1978, ASNE proposed an industry-wide goal of matching the percentage of minorities working in newsrooms with the percentage in the population large by 2000, which fell short. Its new goal is 2025, though with the current waves of layoffs, this goal may also be hard to attain.

Unity: Journalists of Color, Inc. declared that "the parity goal is effectively dead" and instead, they would focus on creating more diversity from the top by increasing the numbers of minority senior newsroom managers.

"The numbers represent a dual reality: It's mildly encouraging that the minority percentage held steady despite difficult economic times that are causing many cutbacks," ASNE president and editorial page editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Gilbert Bailon said. "On the other hand, the total number of minority journalists employed at daily newspapers declined by nearly 300 people, which follows the pattern for the overall newsroom workforce. Such a trend will not help newspapers in their quest to reach parity with the minority population by 2025."

Also, in its annual conference this week, ASNE gave members in Washington, D.C. directions for lobbying Congress, specifically about the Federal Shield Law. The editor's group provided Web site information, background material, and tips on ways to track down individual legislators to make such lobbying easier, including new documents on the ASNE Free Flow of Information Act page.

David Boardman, editor of The Seattle Times, said "editors are not usually in the lobbying business, but agreed it is an issue so important that it deserved extra attention: Advocacy in support of the First Amendment is entirely acceptable."


Source: Editor & Publisher: here and here

The Bush administration opposes a bill that would shield reporters from being forced to reveal their sources. Media advocates say that without the bill journalists will continue to be jailed due to their refusal to give up sources. New York Times magazine writer, William Safire, says: “The movement to force journalists to reveal their sources is an attempt to turn the press into an arm of the law.'' 

At the ‘New Media: The Press Freedom Dimension’ conference in Paris last week experts in Blogging and Citizen media discussed the evolution of this new media and press freedom dimensions. Here, Declan McCullagh of CNET looks at the discussion of the legal divisions and rules between journalists and bloggers.

A proposed federal shield law would protect bloggers that gather news, according to one of the bill's author, Congressman Mike Pence.  Pence distinguished between those bloggers who merely link to other articles and those who perform the functions of professional journalists.

Truth in general exists in 2 forms: in the object itself and in the mind of the perceiver argues Robert Lazaro in a comment in The Manila Times, found through Mediachannel. So the truth for an individual is always depending on how he perceives reality which is also dependent on his convictions. This is similar to what scholars in psychology often find. Regarding journalism Robert Lazaro points out that "when a journalist perceives the truth in his object, he has already taken sides without realizing that he is probably being subjective in so doing". Nevertheless he thinks of truth as "a guiding principle and an ultimate end of the journalist... Truth in journalism is not an empty play of words but a straight-to-the-point reality ... Deadlines, competition for newsbreaks and the need to catch public attention are not excuses for inaccuracies, slanting or semantics."

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee gave a hearing to a proposed federal shield law. The bill would protect journalists from having to reveal their sources unless "disclosure of the identity of such a source is necessary to prevent imminent and actual harm to national security." According to the New York Times, the reception was generally positive. "But a harshly worded dissent from the Justice Department, which called the bill "bad public policy" that would hamper its ability to enforce the law and fight terrorism, underscored the difficult road the legislation faces in becoming law."

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee gave a hearing to a proposed federal shield law. The bill would protect journalists from having to reveal their sources unless "disclosure of the identity of such a source is necessary to prevent imminent and actual harm to national security." According to the New York Times, the reception was generally positive. "But a harshly worded dissent from the Justice Department, which called the bill "bad public policy" that would hamper its ability to enforce the law and fight terrorism, underscored the difficult road the legislation faces in becoming law."

For a non-American, it’s not easy to develop a personal opinion on the Judith Miller case and the subject of anonymous sources (see former posting). But the federal judge was not directly questioning the principles behind revealing anonymous sources. Rather he was applying the American law which states that any revelation of a CIA operative’s identity is a crime and that any means necessary in getting to the bottom of the crime are legal (even the negation of a fundamental journalistic principal). Two fundamental, yet contradictory principals arise, and it is not the first, nor the last, time that this will happen.

The first problem is that we cannot compare what is not comparable. It is wrong to relate the Plame scandal to Watergate. It is also impossible to say that 30 years after Watergate we are experiencing a regression. The American justice system would not have had anything to say if, for example there had been a “deep throat” revealing scandals in the Bush or Kerry presidential campaigns because there would not have been any legal grounds for doing so.

What is even more interesting is the anonymous source debate is the deep rift developing between American and European journalism. Take for example the “code of practice” laid out for British journalists (through the Press Complaints Commission). Article 14 says “Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.” Obviously, a “moral obligation” is not the same as a “legal obligation”, but the principal of anonymous sources has not been attacked by the British press nor the British judiciary system. On the continent, there are plenty of similar examples, even if continental countries have not drawn up a “code of practice.” In Europe, anonymous sources were questioned fifty years ago and are now accepted, the contrary of what is happening in America!

In the American press we see a growing mistrust of anonymous sources, even by American newspapers themselves. According to a survey conducted by the Associated Press, many American regional newspapers don’t even allow the use of anonymous sources, even those with important positions that risk losing their jobs by speaking out. New guidelines by the Washington Post and New York Times define very strict rules on the use of anonymous sources. The consequences of this won’t be felt immediately, but they will eventually end in a more conventional journalism, more rigid and sensitive to self-censorship.

Of course, I understand that scandals such as that of Jayson Blair (faked inquiries) or - still - Judith Miller (articles related to WMD in Irak) provoke journalists to limit their use of anonymous sources themselves. And newspapers were obliged to excuse themselves for allowing excessive use of anonymous sources!

But the pendulum doesn’t have to swing that far! So, what’s happening in the American press is a sort of “new moral order” based on an impossible transparency that investigative journalism is imposing upon itself. We hope that the pendulum will swing back and that a national shield law will soon protect American journalists. We also hope that the gap between the American and European press will close at the same time.

For a non-American, it’s not easy to develop a personal opinion on the Judith Miller case and the subject of anonymous sources (see former posting). But the federal judge was not directly questioning the principles behind revealing anonymous sources. Rather he was applying the American law which states that any revelation of a CIA operative’s identity is a crime and that any means necessary in getting to the bottom of the crime are legal (even the negation of a fundamental journalistic principal). Two fundamental, yet contradictory principals arise, and it is not the first, nor the last, time that this will happen.

The first problem is that we cannot compare what is not comparable. It is wrong to relate the Plame scandal to Watergate. It is also impossible to say that 30 years after Watergate we are experiencing a regression. The American justice system would not have had anything to say if, for example there had been a “deep throat” revealing scandals in the Bush or Kerry presidential campaigns because there would not have been any legal grounds for doing so.

What is even more interesting is the anonymous source debate is the deep rift developing between American and European journalism. Take for example the “code of practice” laid out for British journalists (through the Press Complaints Commission). Article 14 says “Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.” Obviously, a “moral obligation” is not the same as a “legal obligation”, but the principal of anonymous sources has not been attacked by the British press nor the British judiciary system. On the continent, there are plenty of similar examples, even if continental countries have not drawn up a “code of practice.” In Europe, anonymous sources were questioned fifty years ago and are now accepted, the contrary of what is happening in America!

In the American press we see a growing mistrust of anonymous sources, even by American newspapers themselves. According to a survey conducted by the Associated Press, many American regional newspapers don’t even allow the use of anonymous sources, even those with important positions that risk losing their jobs by speaking out. New guidelines by the Washington Post and New York Times define very strict rules on the use of anonymous sources. The consequences of this won’t be felt immediately, but they will eventually end in a more conventional journalism, more rigid and sensitive to self-censorship.

Of course, I understand that scandals such as that of Jayson Blair (faked inquiries) or - still - Judith Miller (articles related to WMD in Irak) provoke journalists to limit their use of anonymous sources themselves. And newspapers were obliged to excuse themselves for allowing excessive use of anonymous sources!

But the pendulum doesn’t have to swing that far! So, what’s happening in the American press is a sort of “new moral order” based on an impossible transparency that investigative journalism is imposing upon itself. We hope that the pendulum will swing back and that a national shield law will soon protect American journalists. We also hope that the gap between the American and European press will close at the same time.

For a non-American, it’s not easy to develop a personal opinion on the Judith Miller case and the subject of anonymous sources (see former posting). But the federal judge was not directly questioning the principles behind revealing anonymous sources. Rather he was applying the American law which states that any revelation of a CIA operative’s identity is a crime and that any means necessary in getting to the bottom of the crime are legal (even the negation of a fundamental journalistic principal). Two fundamental, yet contradictory principals arise, and it is not the first, nor the last, time that this will happen.

The first problem is that we cannot compare what is not comparable. It is wrong to relate the Plame scandal to Watergate. It is also impossible to say that 30 years after Watergate we are experiencing a regression. The American justice system would not have had anything to say if, for example there had been a “deep throat” revealing scandals in the Bush or Kerry presidential campaigns because there would not have been any legal grounds for doing so.

What is even more interesting is the anonymous source debate is the deep rift developing between American and European journalism. Take for example the “code of practice” laid out for British journalists (through the Press Complaints Commission). Article 14 says “Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.” Obviously, a “moral obligation” is not the same as a “legal obligation”, but the principal of anonymous sources has not been attacked by the British press nor the British judiciary system. On the continent, there are plenty of similar examples, even if continental countries have not drawn up a “code of practice.” In Europe, anonymous sources were questioned fifty years ago and are now accepted, the contrary of what is happening in America!

In the American press we see a growing mistrust of anonymous sources, even by American newspapers themselves. According to a survey conducted by the Associated Press, many American regional newspapers don’t even allow the use of anonymous sources, even those with important positions that risk losing their jobs by speaking out. New guidelines by the Washington Post and New York Times define very strict rules on the use of anonymous sources. The consequences of this won’t be felt immediately, but they will eventually end in a more conventional journalism, more rigid and sensitive to self-censorship.

Of course, I understand that scandals such as that of Jayson Blair (faked inquiries) or - still - Judith Miller (articles related to WMD in Irak) provoke journalists to limit their use of anonymous sources themselves. And newspapers were obliged to excuse themselves for allowing excessive use of anonymous sources!

But the pendulum doesn’t have to swing that far! So, what’s happening in the American press is a sort of “new moral order” based on an impossible transparency that investigative journalism is imposing upon itself. We hope that the pendulum will swing back and that a national shield law will soon protect American journalists. We also hope that the gap between the American and European press will close at the same time.

Mr. Jiang Shaogao, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of People's Daily in China emphasized newspaper's role in lighting the way for peace and understanding.

The Chinese media industry has seen a growth from 16,000 journalists 20 years ago to the current 750,000. The explosion of journalists calls for greater relations between media and the government.

Mr. Jiang says that there should be some management of the media by the government. However, he does not mean "control" and suggests that to ensure fairness for Chinese media organizations is economic independence.

Mr. Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, Chairman of The New York Times, emphasized the promotion of press freedom to maintain journalistic integrity in the face of prosecution by governmental bodies.

"When any government tells us what must appear on the pages of our newspapers, television and radio broadcasts and websites, we lose our identity as journalists and become something else - a spokesman for the authorities."

Citing the examples of Judy Miller of the New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time Magazine, who were given the choice to either to violate confidential sources or face prosecution, Mr. Sulzberger urged the need for the journalistic community to support the "federal shield law."

Mr. Jiang Shaogao, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of People's Daily in China emphasized newspaper's role in lighting the way for peace and understanding.

The Chinese media industry has seen a growth from 16,000 journalists 20 years ago to the current 750,000. The explosion of journalists calls for greater relations between media and the government.

Mr. Jiang says that there should be some management of the media by the government. However, he does not mean "control" and suggests that to ensure fairness for Chinese media organizations is economic independence.

Mr. Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, Chairman of The New York Times, emphasized the promotion of press freedom to maintain journalistic integrity in the face of prosecution by governmental bodies.

"When any government tells us what must appear on the pages of our newspapers, television and radio broadcasts and websites, we lose our identity as journalists and become something else - a spokesman for the authorities."

Citing the examples of Judy Miller of the New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time Magazine, who were given the choice to either to violate confidential sources or face prosecution, Mr. Sulzberger urged the need for the journalistic community to support the "federal shield law."