Murdoch seeks restricted Internet

Congress is trying to restrict the Internet, and global media baron Rupert Murdoch last week personally lobbied leaders on Capitol Hill for two measures that supporters say merely combat piracy.

The bills are misleadingly titled the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, and the Protect IP Act in the Senate.

"Both measures would require Internet operators to police activity online," according top Ryan Grim and Michael McAuliff on The Huffington Post, "and would mandate Internet giants like Google and AOL, and credit card companies, to take down sites that have content deemed to be in violation of copyright rules."

Opponents, including Google, charge that the proposals would be censorship that would stifle innovation and impose higher costs on consumers.

Associated Press blasts Kentucky athletics for denying student journalists access to players

As the Western Courier recently published, the Associated Press Managing Editors (APME) and the Associated Press Sports Editors organizations both have blasted University of Kentucky athletics for revoking the student newspaper's access to players.

After Kentucky freshman forward Anthony Davis Tweeted a welcome to walk-ons Brian Long and Sam Malone, Aaron Smith, managing editor of the Kentucky Kernel student newspaper, sought confirmation of that news from the players themselves. So he looked up their phone numbers in the school directory and contacted them, said Kernel Editor-in-Chief Taylor Moak.

Then DaWayne Peevy, associate athletic director of Media Relations, contacted Smith to inform him that the newspaper was no longer invited to a special, one-on-one media interview with the players the next day because Smith had asked the players for interviews without first getting permission from Media Relations.

APME president Hollis Towns wrote Kentucky Director of Athletics Mitch Barnhart that the action “amounts to no less than an attempt to bully the newspaper into submission and to censor news concerning operations of the University of Kentucky athletic department.”

Meanwhile, Student Press Law Center attorney Adam Goldstein said the university's actions boil down to one.

“People seem to be struggling with the nuances of athletic regulations, but the simple question at the core is: Can the government punish someone for asking a question?” Goldstein said. “Any answer that defends Media Relations for what they did here requires you to answer in the affirmative. The idea that punishing people for asking questions should ever be OK is irreconcilable with any First Amendment precedent in history.”

Gov't not liable for TV station excluding Green Party from debates, court rules

Just because a broadcaster is licensed by the federal government -- and even when a significant amount of its funding comes from government -- doesn't mean the government is responsible for what shows -- or doesn't show, according to U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman in Chicago.

On August 18, Gettleman dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Green Party in 2010 against WTTW-TV (Window to the World Communications, Inc.) for excluding Green gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney (shown above during a campaign stop in Macomb) and U.S. Senate candidate LeAlan Jones from debates the PBS affiliate telecast.

The Green Party sued on the grounds that its First, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights were violated.

The Green Party has been recognized by the state of Illinois as an established political party since Whitney in 2006 received more than 11 percent of the votes for governor.

In a five-page opinion, Gettleman dismissed the case on the grounds that the defendant is neither owned by the government nor was it acting as an arm of the government. WTTW is a non-profit corporation.

A footnote in the decision says that the court would be disinclined to force Whitney or the Greens to pay attorneys’ fees to the defendants.

Meanwhile, it seems that earnest journalists must now shoulder a heavier burden in justifying to the public any editorial decisions to ignore or exclude "recognized," legitimate or long-shot candidates for political office, whether Whitney, Republican Ron Paul or Democrat Dennis Kucinich.

Whistleblower case plea deal not reassuring

This summer, federal prosecutors agreed to a deal with a whistleblower that avoided a trial (and public disclosure of information the government prefers to keep secret), but civil libertarians and journalists haven't been reassured that the Obama administration's zeal to vigorously stop leaks won't continue-- and have dire effects on transparency and on basic reporting.

Ex-National Security Agency official Thomas Drake (pictured above in a shot from the Government Accountability Project) was charged with violating the Espionage Act by giving classified information to a Baltimore Sun reporter, but he pleaded guilty to a lesser misdemeanor. Drake's defense was that he was a whistleblower exposing waste in an NSA program after his superiors ignored his concerns.

Journalists are very sensitive to the case -- and the federal government's targeting whistleblowers -- because journalists by the nature of newsgathering could be interpreted as co-conspirators.

"Because reporters often retain unauthorized defense documents, Drake's conviction would estbalish a legal precedent making it possible to prosecute journalists," wrote Jane Mayer in The New Yorker magazine.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, predicted the administration will continue to pursue whistleblowers at intelligence agencies “very, very aggressively.”

For more coverage and context, check out Mayer's piece (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer), Scott Horton's piece in Harper's (http://harpers.org/archive/2011/06/hbc-90008114), and Pete Yost's Associated Press story from Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/06/ap-nsa-case-unlikely-to-deter-crackdown-on-leakers-061111/).

UK's Cameron threatens to block social media

Bloomberg reports that Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom is considering blocking social media, which he blames for facilitating some of the unrest that's hit England in recent weeks.

Cameron apparently learned little from similar attempts in Egypt and other "Arab Spring" sites that ignored reasons for unrest, and is focusing on tools some ruffians may be using as opposed to the property damage, thefts and other crimes that have happened.

“If you try to stop people communicating, you create more of a problem,” said Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group, an organization promoting freedom of expression on the Internet.

Speaking to Bloomberg reporters Amy Thomson and Robert Hutton, Killock added, “People are angry because their freedoms are threatened.”

Illustration from ABNA.co

Obama's EPA uses 'minders' to clamp down on openness

For all the President's talk about transparency and openness, his Environmental Protection Agency is planning to institute a policy that employees must get permission to talk to journalists, according to a short but detailed report from the Society for Environmental Journalists (SEJ).

SEJ and other press groups have opposed such restrictions, but the policy could go in to effect unless people object before the Sept. 6 deadline for public comment.

The "Scientific Integrity Policy" also mandates that bureaucraic "minders" from EPA's press office must sit in on all media interviews with scientists.

"We object to parts of the EPA draft policy that restrict news media access to EPA scientists," SEJ President Carolyn Whetzel said. "In some cases, the proposed policy is much more restrictive than the NASA or NOAA policies, or even the White House guidelines."

Speaking out against Eavesdropping Act

Bob Roberts in the Illinois News Broadcasters Association newsletter TuneIN writes about the state legislature's Eavesdropping Act:

In newsrooms across Illinois, there's a daily mantra.

"Before we go any further, I'd like to make sure I have permission to record this conversation."

It's something I've said anytime I begin to tape the interview since I can remember. Most of the time I double-check by telling my interview subject, "Thank you again for agreeing to be recorded."

That's because Illinois law is clear: No conversation can legally be recorded unless all parties to it agree.

For those who are Illinois "lifers," it may come as a surprise that the law in other states is not uniform. In fact, a number of states don't require you, the journalist, to tell anyone you're recording.

The Illinois law is being challenged in the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, and RTDNA, SPJ, NPPA, the American Society of News Editors, the Citizen Media Law Project, Reports Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) and the Association of Capitol Reporters and Editors have all filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the suit ACLU v. Anita Alvarez challenging the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, which RCFP Executive Director Lucy Dalglish calls "shockingly broad."

RCFP says that the brief, filed April 22, asserts that the "disposition of this case is critically important in setting a precedent that will either protect or endanger newsgatherers' constitutional rights."

Dalglish said Illinois is not the only state with a law she considers "overly broad," but said in some states similar statues have led to citizens being arrested while shooting video or still photographs of public events in public places.

"This is the most outrageous statue we've found," she said. "These unconstitutional arrests tend to have one thing in problem: they occur after someone in power, often a law enforcement official, decides he or she does not like the speech or conduct captured on the recording. The notion that you can be arrested for documenting that behavior should send chills down the spines of anyone who cares about the Constitution."

Unfortunately, INBA lacks the resources to join such a fight on a continuing basis. But I wish those who are pressing the case good luck.

Editorial cartoon right on time

Cartoonist John Cole of the Scranton Times-Tribune created this excellent graphic commentary on thugs' treatment of journalists trying to cover events in Egypt.

Excerpt shows courage of press -- and wackiness of Nixon

The Daily Beast has a gripping excerpt from Mark Feldstein's book Poisoning the Press, detailed the paranoia, arrogance and totalitarian mindset of the Nixon White House in the months before Watergate toppled that presidency.

Nixon and his Oval Office advisers actually proposed and considered assassinating investigative reporter Jack Anderson, a syndicated columnist.

"We examined all of the alternatives and very quickly came to the conclusion [that] the only way you're going to be able to stop him is to kill him,” said G. Gordon Liddy, ex-Republican campaign operative and future right-wing talk-radio host.

It was a close call, Feldstein shows.

Toyota puts price on good journalism

As Toyota steps up its public-relations pushback machine, consumers of news as well as cars might recall that the Japanese carmaker’s problems are not new –- and they’re trying to financially punish those news operations that brought the facts to light.

ABC-TV affiliates in five southeastern states had Toyota pull all their advertising in retaliation for ABC News accurately reporting on problems such as sticky pedals.

“ABC News and its chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross have been reporting on the problem of ‘runaway Toyotas’ since last November,” reports journalist and commentator Laura Flanders. “Ross had hosted a series of stories long before Toyota management started issuing apologies and denials about the extent of their cars’ defects.”

Earlier this month, as Toyota started its biggest recalls ever, Southeast Toyota dealers started pulling commercials off ABC. According to excerpts from an ABC report, the ad agency representing 173 dealers told local ABC affiliates that the shift was due to “excessive stories on the Toyota issues.” One unnamed ABC station manager quoted in a February 8 story on the ad-pulls is quoted as saying that the dealers shifted their commercial time buys to non-ABC stations in the same markets, “as punishment for the reporting.”

Toyota recently started recalling 2010 Prius, too. to its list of recalled vehicles.

“Will ABC News continue reporting?” Flanders asks. “Probably. But will cash-strapped local affiliates continue to run those stories?”

Censorship on farm, under power lines

Two dispatches from the Society of Environmental Journalists' Watchdog Tipsheet show how censorship can take different forms -- and that Americans must remain vigilant to protect their rights, First Amendment or beyond.

"Publishing the origin of 4th-of-July hamburgers could land anyone — including newspaper publishers and consumer activists — in jail for up to 10 years if the animal feeding industry succeeds in getting a little-noticed amendment enacted into law," SEJ writes. "Citing the location of a large feedlot would likewise be a crime, even when the smell of the lot offended people a mile away and federal law requires disclosure of its address under the Clean Water Act."

That issue stems from lobbyists such as the Farm Bureau trying to influence the Farm Bill to prevent disclosure of facts related to agribusiness.

"The Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) and six other journalism groups urged Senators in a Nov. 7, 2007, letter to strike the secrecy language. Joining SEJ were the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, the National Press Foundation, and UNITY: Journalists of Color," SEJ reported. "Other journalism groups lobbied behind the scenes for removal of the language.

Elsewhere, a university art professor from Washington was detained by police after she took photographs of power lines, and is suing local officials with help from the American Civil Liberties Union.

"We don't think an art professor should get frisked, handcuffed and put in the back of a squad car for taking photographs on public property in plain sight," ACLU spokesman Doug Honig said. "As an artist and as a teacher, she doesn't want other people who are taking photos of landscapes and other things to be hassled and detained by law enforcement."

For the Associated Press news story on the latter, check out
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19337

For the former story on secrecy on the farm, check out http://www.sej.org/foia/index7.htm

IHSA bans photogs from state tourney

Press photographers from daily newspapers in Bloomington, Peoria, Springfield and two Chicago suburbs were banned from covering Illinois' two-day, eight-game high school football championship games in Urbana last weekend by the Illinois High School Association.

IHSA officials said that the papers had violated the IHSA's policy on secondary sales of images from state tournament events, and therefore were not given access to the field.

IHSA executive director Marty Hickman said, "While the Illinois Press Association has indicated its willingness to compromise on this matter, its actions have spoken much louder than its words. We asked the IPA [Illinois Press Association] to have its members refrain from selling photos of our events while we continued to work to resolve this issue. We presented the IPA with a proposal nearly two weeks ago and they have yet to respond."

Some professional photojournalists say a boycott of IHSA sporting events might influence state associations who seek to control the conditions that newspapers agree to in order to receive credentials, including secondary use of newspapers' own images and print sales.

For a complete story from the National Press Photographers Association, go to
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/11/illinois03.html