The Return of the Moguls

A couple of links for tonight’s class

In addition to our main topic (the Gawker case), we are going to have a discussion of the varieties of anonymous sources, what you need to know and why you should avoid using anonymous sources whenever possible.

If we have time, we will also discuss Jay Rosen’s involvement in a start-up news project called The Correspondent, which represents the latest iteration of his idea that journalism should be a conversation.

Taking the next steps on your research paper

Your research papers will be due on April 24, which is just a few weeks from now. Recently I posted guidelines. By this point you should have a clear topic in mind and have started work on your research.

Before our next class, please write a memo/summary on what your paper will be about. Your memo should be about 200 to 300 words long, but you can certainly write more. I’m looking to see that you have thought this through, and I’m looking for enough information so that I can provide you with feedback and recommendations. Identify at least some of the primary and secondary sources you intend to use.

I have deliberately kept the assignment open-ended, but you are writing a substantial research paper at the graduate level. That means you need to offer a mix of primary and secondary sources. For instance, let’s say you decide to examine how The New York Times and The Washington Post covered President Trump’s inaugural address. In addition to offering your own close analysis of what those two papers actually published (primary sources), you would want to supplement that with material providing us with information on the two papers from a variety of secondary sources; perhaps a non-Times, non-Post source on what Trump was trying to accomplish with that speech; whether the two papers’ coverage of Trump’s speech was in accordance with the principles laid out by Kovach and Rosenstiel, and the like.

You may want to bolster your research by interviewing experts as well, although that is not a requirement. If you choose, you may write a purely academic paper with no interviews.

Send your memo to me by email in the form of a Microsoft Word document.

Callie Crossley on media diversity, ‘Under the Radar’ and her career in journalism

Many thanks to Callie Crossley of WGBH News for sharing with us her thoughts on diversity in the media, her radio program “Under the Radar with Callie Crossley,” and the story of her career path. Here are links to some of the subjects she discussed in her talk.

• ProPublica’s efforts to build a more diverse newsroom.
• Business Insider’s report on a letter signed by Wall Street Journal staffers criticizing the control white men have over newsroom decision-making.
• White House press secretary Sean Spicer telling reporter April Ryan to “stop shaking your head.”
• The Twitter hashtag #blackwomenatwork, which took off after Fox News talk-show host Bill O’Reilly compared U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters’ hair to “a James Brown wig.”

Further thoughts on the First Amendment

I just finished sending back your reviews of Anthony Lewis’ “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate.” You clearly found the book engaging and interesting. If I have an objection to Lewis, it is that he jumps around quite a bit and makes it difficult to focus on the few cases that are most important.

We are not going to have time for me to lecture on the great First Amendment cases. Many of you are already taking Professor Leff’s course, and thus it would be redundant for you. But I do want to highlight what I think are the most important cases and what they mean for freedom of speech and the press.

Gitlow v. New York (1925). The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that, under the 14th Amendment, no government official at any level, including state or local, could abridge the First Amendment. Prior to that, “Congress shall make no law” meant quite literally that.

Near v. Minnesota (1931). The Supreme Court ruled that prior restraint — that is, censorship — was a violation of the Constitution except in a few very narrowly tailored circumstances: serious breaches of national security akin to revealing the movement of troops during wartime; obscenity; and incitement to violence. The Pentagon Papers case (New York Times v. United States, 1971) is sometimes thought of as a landmark decision, but it is really just a natural outgrowth of Near.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). Prior to this decision, libel was generally defined as false, defamatory speech — period. In Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that a public official could not successfully sue for libel unless he was also able to show that the false, defamatory content was published with “actual malice” — that is, that it was published in the knowledge that it was false or that it was published with “reckless disregard for the truth.” The actual malice standard was later extended to public figures as well.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). This case resolved decades of debate over the meaning of incitement to violence, starting with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ declaration in Schenck v. United States (1919) that “falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” was not constitutionally protected speech. In Brandenburg, the Supreme Court ruled that speech was protected unless it created a serious, imminent threat of violence — such as a speaker at a rally urging the mob to burn down a house.

Branzburg v. Hayes (1972). The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not grant to journalists the right to protect their anonymous sources, meaning that under certain circumstances they can be ordered by a judge to reveal the names of their sources. Forty-nine states (Wyoming being the only exception) offer some protection for journalists, but the federal system does not. In keeping with the “enigmatic concurring opinion” of Justice Lewis Powell in Branzburg, judges generally weigh factors such as the importance of the information sought and whether there are any other ways of getting it before deciding whether to order a journalist to reveal her sources.

Getting ready for next week’s guest speaker

Callie Crossley

Our next guest speaker will be Callie Crossley of WGBH News, who will join us next Wednesday to talk about diversity in the newsroom and in news coverage. Crossley is a panelist on “Beat the Press” and “Basic Black” on WGBH-TV (Channel 2), the host of “Under the Radar” on WGBH Radio (89.7 FM) and an essayist for WGBHNews.org.

I have posted an assignment (or at least I will in a few minutes) on Facebook asking you to listen to at least one segment of “Under the Radar” and write a reflection on it. It will be due by next Wednesday at 10 a.m.

Fake news! What it is, what it isn’t and how to avoid it.

Your review of Anthony Lewis’ ‘Freedom for the Thought That We Hate”

Your third and final book review of the semester is due next Wednesday, March 22, at 10 a.m. Please write a 500- to 800-word review of Anthony Lewis’ “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate.” Lewis surveys the rise of the First Amendment from the vague language of the Constitution — “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” — to the strong press protections that we enjoy today.

Although Lewis is a gifted writer, he deals with a difficult subject, especially if you are new to American media law. I recently wrote a column on Lewis’ book for WGBH News, and I hope you will find it useful in understanding what Lewis is writing about. Bonus: WGBH had to run a correction because of a boneheaded mistake I made, which I’m sure you’ll enjoy.

As always, I would like you to write this in the form of a review that we might read in a newspaper or on a website. You will be graded on the strength of your argument, the quality of your writing and your attention to detail. Among other things, I would like you to think about one broad area of First Amendment law that Lewis describes that you wish had turned out differently. Some guidelines:

• Make sure you meet the deadline.
• Spell all proper names correctly. One of my goals for this assignment is not to have to reduce anyone’s grade for improper spelling of names. Double-check. If this were for publication, you would be expected to get it right, and you would not be able to count on a copy editor to catch mistakes.
• Write an enticing headline with an eye toward publication.
• As with any piece of journalistic writing, aim for a strong lede that hooks the reader right away. Always keep in mind that you are writing for an audience.
• Try to follow the AP style guidelines I posted recently. (Style note: You will find within the guidelines an admonition against the use of single quotation marks unless they are inside doubles. In case you were wondering about the headline on this post, headline style typically uses single quotes.)

Here are the book-review resources that I’ve posted each time: We all subscribe to The Washington Post, so be sure to take a look at its book section. You’ll want to concentrate on the nonfiction reviews. The New York Times offers extensive book coverage, including a standalone Sunday Book Review. The Boston Globe publishes good-quality book reviews, too.

Please write it as a Microsoft Word document and send it to me by email.

Jeff Jacoby speaks about liberal media bias

Jeff Jacoby speaks to Northeastern students in 2014.

Many thanks to Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby for sharing his views about liberal media bias at our class on Wednesday evening. If you haven’t had a chance yet to read the pieces he discussed, you will find them here. I know you are all working hard on your book reviews, but these are short commentaries that are worth spending a few moments with.

Below are the slides for the talk I gave before Jacoby arrived — what you might call a “prebuttal.” My contention is that though there is a broad liberal consensus within the mainstream media, it does not affect coverage as much as conservatives imagine that it does.

Getting ready for our first class after spring break

On Wednesday we will hear from the latest in our fabulous series of guest speakers: Jeff Jacoby of The Boston Globe. Jacoby is a leading conservative commentator, and he is going to talk about his belief that the mainstream media are a hotbed of liberal bias. In order to get ready for his talk, please read the following short pieces:

• “When reporters value ‘justice’ over accuracy, journalism loses,” by Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, Dec. 14, 2014
• “News media need to own their biases,” by Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, Sept. 5, 2012
• The Media Research Center’s round-up of studies on liberal bias
• “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?,” by Daniel Okrent, New York Times, July 25, 2004

We can also ask Jacoby about several recent columns he wrote about organ-harvesting in China, which was the subject of Emerald Li’s presentation:

• “In China, prisoners of conscience are literally being butchered,” by Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, Dec. 4, 2016
• “Is Miss World silencing Anastasia Lin?,” by Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, Dec. 13, 2016