Category: Class Updates

A couple of links for tonight’s class

On By Dan KennedyIn Class Updates

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.

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

On By Dan KennedyIn Class Updates

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.

Further thoughts on the First Amendment

On By Dan KennedyIn Class Updates

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.

Jeff Jacoby speaks about liberal media bias

On By Dan KennedyIn Class Updates
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 By Dan KennedyIn Class Updates

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:

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:

Thank you to Lisa Williams, Matt Carroll and Hacks/Hackers

On By Dan KennedyIn Class Updates

We are full of thank-yous today. Many thanks to Lisa Williams of WBUR Radio for spending some time with us to talk about ethics in the digital age. And thanks to Matt Carroll of our School of Journalism for inviting us to sit in on Wednesday night’s Hacks/Hackers event. During our discussion, several of you expressed interest in the data visualizations about the opioid crisis. Here it is if you’d like to explore it more deeply.

Getting ready for Wednesday’s class: The MacDonald case, Hacks/Hackers and more

On By Dan KennedyIn Assignments, Class Updates

There will be a lot of moving parts to our class this Wednesday, Feb. 15. I ask that everyone show up on time and be aware of what we’re going to be doing so that we can use our time together as efficiently as possible.

  • At 5:30 p.m. we’ll meet in our usual location, 148 Holmes. We will have a brief opening, some business and a presentation by Wen Lei.
  • At 6:15 we will leave for 220 Shillman. We’re going to sit in on a meeting of Hacks/Hackers Boston sponsored by the School of Journalism and Google Play Newsstand. Speakers will deliver lightning talks on projects they’re working on. You can find out more by clicking here.
  • The event is supposed to end at 7:30 or 8. We will return to 148 at that time and discuss the presentations — what we liked, what we didn’t.

What this means is that we won’t have a chance to discuss the MacDonald case and Janet Malcolm’s book. I think that’s all right. In your syllabus you will find two readings from two very different points of view: my review of Errol Morris’ “A Wilderness of Error” and Gene Weingarten’s profile of Brian Murtagh, who prosecuted MacDonald and maintains that he is guilty. I think you will find that those articles will give you a deeper understanding of what Malcolm is writing about.

You will also find the assignment for next Wednesday, Feb. 22, in the syllabus. I will post something more specific later, but please keep in mind the following guidelines: make deadline; make sure all proper names are spelled correctly; try to write a strong headline; and concentrate on making this a piece of journalistic writing, with a lede that grabs the reader. Write for an audience, not just for me.