A NJ appeals court has ruled a newspaper can be sued for libel for reporting complaints made in court documents before the case goes to court. (Story here.)
Talk about scary. If a journalist can’t report on government records until the government wants it to, what is next?
Score a victory for the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth has ordered the Justice Department to release information used to get search warrants for the home of a former suspect in the 2001 anthrax case and his then-girlfriend. (See full story.)
Former Army scientist Stephen Hatfill has long since been exonerated, but some of you may remember the search. It was shown live on TV, as were comments by the then-Attorney General John Ashcroft that labeled Hatfill “a person of interest.”
The anthrax case is still making headlines, as the FBI centers its case on former Army scientist Bruce Ivins, a suspect who killed himself.
Posted in Media Law, newspapers
Following up on yesterday’s debate about the fate of newspapers, I had some of my journalism students get in groups and consider what they would suggest if they were to attend some kind of “Manhattan Project” designed to save newspapers, as Martin Langeveld suggested.
Here are a few of the groups’ ideas:
* “Get public input and make the topic of saving newspapers official, not just scattered on blogs.”
* “A web site for the ‘Manhattan Project’ where innovative and ‘young’ journalists can collaborate and voice their opinions”
* “Take papers away for a week–see how much outrage (or not) there is” (That could be scary. What if there were very little outrage?)
* “Pop-up newspapers–put art/craft things in there”
* “Cheaper editions of papers, with ‘paper boys’ selling these editions on the street for 25 cents”
* “Sell sections separately” and make newspapers “more like a book or magazine”
Several of the groups thought it would be a good idea to have some kind of a “reward system” for newspaper readers. One group suggested, “If you read newspapers, you turn it into a company, get a prize, recycle — like Pizza Hut Book It.”
One response that I as a former newspaper reporter who still loves to get the ink on my hands am having trouble bringing up follows:
“Let it die! The Internet is taking over. Sell ads online.”
Bloggers are taking on the American Press Institute’s “crisis summit” on the future of newspapers and one can only hope that in the end the winner will be news consumers.
API’s summit, “Saving an Industry in Crisis,” ended with no real plan or ideas — except to meet again in six months. That no-solution solution got on several bloggers radars–and under their skins. (See Martin Langeveld, Steve Outing, and Kristufek’s We Media.
I’m going to ask my convergence journalism students tomorrow what ideas they would take to a Manhattan project. I’ll let you know the results tomorrow.
The New York Times and Los Angeles Times have petitioned to get access to secret government records about the anthrax case from 2001. No word on the ruling yet, but I applaud the effort. This ruined Dr. Stephen Hatfill’s life and just because it happened years ago does not mean journalists should let it drop.
If the government was wrong about Hatfill, a man then Attorney General John Ashcroft labeled “a person of interest” in interviews with numerous TV shows, why should we believe it is right about its accusations against a dead man? Hatfill could and did fight the accusations. Bruce Ivins has no such option.
Oh, and Ashcroft’s folly merely cost taxpayers $5.82 million.
The New York Post features a witty yet depressing piece on the fate of TV news if newspapers do, indeed, die (Thanks, Romensko, for pointing this out!).
When I was a newspaper reporter, it used to frustrate our staff that we would write something, turn on the radio and hear the exact same story word for word. The radio reporters at a couple local stations would simply read our stories on the air. (That eventually changed after vocal protests from the then-editor.) The TV reporters in our area would at least do their own stories.
While I was angry then, thinking about the possibility that some TV or radio broadcasters would be left with nothing without newspapers and would be filling the air with who-knows-what while completely missing the boat on news important to the lives of their viewers and listeners makes me even angrier.
One way or another, the news industry has to change. Newspapers have got to find a way to be vital to people’s lives and broadcasters who are troubled by this (as the longtime broadcaster in the NY Post piece was) need to demand better.
When I was trolling the web for some free speech legal news, I discovered a New York Times page completely focused on the U.S. Supreme Court.
The page includes everything a multimedia package, bios on the justices, court documents, links to blogs and the usual case updates. For media law junkies like me, it is fabulous.
Tom Cheredar writes an interesting post about how newspapers should use Twitter for a conversation, not just as an alternate RSS feed.
I must confess I like getting links and news through Twitter, but I tend to follow the links sent with personal, conversational comments. It fits right with his research found.
Posted in newspapers, technology
Mark Potts has a hilarious post on the upcoming meeting of newspaper executives to save, well, newspapers.
Anyone who has worked in journalism will understand this …
Posted in Uncategorized
journajunkie 