Muslims have rights to free speech, don’t forget

Great story today on how violating people’s free speech rights has a cost.  The story is about an airline passenger forced to cover his T-shirt because of the Arabic writing. This reportedly led to the man receiving  $240,000 in compensation.

It’s about time stories of the second-class treatment of Muslims in this country since 9-11 are starting to get wide attention. In the past week alone, this story and one of Muslims forced off a plane for “suspicious” discussions have gained nationwide attention.

My brother-in-law is an Iranian immigrant forced to leave his own country during the Revolution. If he goes back, he faces death. He would never complain about how the U.S. has treated him–quite the contrary, in fact. However, if one travels with him, one notices that this  physician must adopt a placating, quiet manner in order not to be seen as a threat. His mere appearance and name already raise suspicion. He can’t talk boisterously  like the rest of us can if we would like. That would raise eyebrows. And heaven forbid he have to take a phone call from a relative and speak in Farsi.

As journalists, we should help those who feel the need to be voiceless regain their voices. In doing so, we can remind people that the First Amendment is not just for Christians. It is for all.

Dear President Obama …

The Buffalo News features a nice editorial on why President-elect Obama should make a federal shield law a priority. (A shield law is a law that protects journalists from having to reveal confidential sources. Currently, some states have shield laws, but there is no federal shield law. Check here to see if your state has one.)

The Society of Professional Journalists has also recently called upon Obama to support a federal shield law as he indicated he would do during the campaign.

With the economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s safe to say that gathering support for a federal shield law is not one of Obama’s top priorities. However, it should be. If we are going to get this country back on track, we need journalists to hold people in power accountable. To do that, they need to know they are not going to face prison for reporting an accurate story with an anonymous source whom they refuse to reveal. Journalists want “change we can believe in,” too.

Fewer reporters=watchdog journalism?

After 59 jobs were cut, the Democrat and Chronicle has expanded its watchdog/investigative reporting team from two to three reporters. So says Karen Magnuson, editor and vice president of news at the Gannett paper.

She mentions budget challenges, but writes:

I truly believe we editors have a special calling. We have a mission like no other in serving our communities. No matter what the challenge is, we must uphold our First Amendment responsibilities by shining a light on things that would otherwise go unreported.

I applaud the commitment to watchdog journalism. I just hope they can do it. The Gannett job cuts have practical implications that cannot be ignored. Daily news still needs to get covered, yet fewer people are there to do it. And from what I’ve heard of the D&C job cuts, more experienced journalists were let go than less experienced journalists.

Godspeed, Karen Magnuson and the D&C’s watchdog team. I look forward to following this.

2009 ‘Year of the Journalist’

Arguing that the individual freelancer will gain more power, Andy Dickinson predicts 2009 will be the “Year of the Journalist” . His argument is, of course, more complex than that and is definitely worth a read.

I certainly hope he is right. So many talented journalists are out there looking for work, and we need their skills and insight. I have a bumper sticker from The Newspaper Guild on my office door that says “Democracy depends on journalism.” So true, yet in this day of journalistic uncertainty, also so scary.

Female newscasters face same old battles?

WIVB-TV, Buffalo’s top-rated news station, fired a long-time morning news anchor this week. By all accounts, she was liked and had a good reputation. She was, however, not your typical female TV news anchor. Although attractive, she was not a young, slender, model-like woman. (See an older clip of Lisa here.)

My first thought was she was fired because of her weight. I was not alone. Posts to The Buffalo News’s Talkin’ TV blog echoed my thought. For example, one poster writes:

I don’t care if the person reading the news weighs 250 or 85, is 4″2″ or 6’6″. All I care about, is that they know how to read, and do it in a professional manner. Lisa Scott did so, for many years for Ch 4, and to get rid of her is stupid, stupid, stupid.

I realize these are hard economic times and journalists everywhere are losing their jobs. WIVB says Scott’s firing was part of a restructuring of the station. (Lisa wasn’t the only one to lose her job. Reporter Ellen Maxwell, who had worked for WIVB for eight years, and an internet manager lost theirs, too.) I also realize that salaries for new reporters are a helluva lot less than for experienced ones.

However, I can’t help but think about Christine Craft and whether things have really changed much for female TV anchors and journalists. More than 25 years ago Craft was fired from her job as a TV anchor following a consultant’s report that said viewers thought she was too old, not attractive enough and not deferential enough to men. She sued and initially won her sex discrimination case, although that judgment was overturned eventually on appeal.

For Lisa Scott and others like her, I can’t help but think that things have not changed as much as we would like.

Journalism groups fight NJ decision

Thank goodness 19 news organizations are fighting a ridiculous New Jersey appellate court decision that said that journalists could  be sued for libel for accurately reporting legal complaints.

The groups — which include ABC, the New York Times, the ACLU and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — have asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to overturn the decision.

Anthrax libel case hits dead end

The Supreme Court has declined to overturn the case of a U.S. scientist incorrectly linked to the 2001 Anthrax killings. Steven Hatfill sued The New York Times for libel, but an appeals court dismissed of the case, saying Hatfill was a public figure and hadn’t met the higher burden of proof in the case.

While I sympathize with Hatfill’s plight, the court made the right call. Hatfill’s problem stems from the government, not from The Times. Case in point: Earlier this year the Justice Department agreed to pay Hatfill $5.8 million to settle his case that government officials violated his privacy by talking about the case with the media.

The Times reports its attorney David E. McCraw said this is:

“an important reaffirmation of Times v. Sullivan,” the seminal 1964 Supreme Court decision that placed constitutional limits on libel suits. That decision, Mr. McCraw said, “is designed to encourage the press to report aggressively on matters of public concern.”

We should all be thankful that NY Times v. Sullivan not only exists, but continues to stand the test of time, regardless of changes in administrations and justices.

Circumsion claim cause for libel suit

The New York Times’s Sewell Chan writes about an unusual libel case involving whether it is libelous to incorrectly report that someone is not circumcised.

A Queens man is suing Centropa, a group with the mission of preserving Jewish culture, for just that. The story is worth a read.

Copy editors spank Zell

Wonder what copy editors do?

Well this great piece by the American Copy Editors Society explains it and takes the Tribune’s Sam Zell to task at the same time.

My hat is off to you, ACES. Keep it coming.

Case exemplifies need for federal shield law

A 60-year-old reporter whose work once led to a Pulitzer Prize for public service is fighting to keep his source for a story on an internal government investigation of a lawyer confidential.

David Ashenfelter of the Detroit Free Press did not reveal his source, and instead claimed the Fifth Amendment. Attorneys for the lawyer, who was in charge of terrorism cases, argue the use of the Fifth Amendment was improper and will continue to pursue the case.

At the heart of this issue is the lack of a federal shield law to protect journalists from revealing their sources. Many states have shield laws, but there is no such federal equivalent. (Does your state have a shield law? Find out here.)

The Society of Professional Journalists and other journalism groups have been calling for a federal shield law for years.

Perhaps with the same party in majority in Congress and in the White House something can be done.