Brian Dolinar's been in touch with the ACLU, and they just sent a letter to Chief Finney regarding the incident on June 8 where BD was removed from a press conference related to the West Side Park shootings (http://www.ucimc.org/node/1361&hidden=1) At this point, ACLU has apparently not agreed to file a lawsuit.
Brian: Attached is the letter I just sent to Chief Finney. As we discussed today, the ACLU-IL has agreed to send this letter on your behalf, but has not agreed to take any other action (e.g., we have not at this juncture agreed to file a lawsuit). Please call me if anything happens on this matter. Thanks, -Adam
Adam Schwartz
Senior Staff Counsel
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois
180 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 201-9740
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| BD-ACLU.pdf | 99.75 KB |
It sounds like the ACLU is under-informed on this case. There is nothing "arbitrary or content-based" about excluding a consistently hostile "journalist" with a history of disruptive behavior. It is also unreasonable to wait for him to disrupt yet another press conference before asking him to leave.
Exactly.
BD was excluded not because he wasn't "credentialed," or because the CPD hates online media. He was excluded as an individual, because he has a history of disruptive behavior, and has been escorted out of meetings in the past.
Brian needs to learn that he can't be both activist and reporter. If he wants to be a reporter then he needs to ask the questions to get to the point of his articles. But making judgmental statements in a public forum is not reporting.
One blogger expressed interest in writing a letter to Mr. Schwartz. If anyone else wants to, his email is aschwartz@aclu-il.org
Another big story floating around about journalists and their campaign contributions: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455
Although most people are drumming it up as evidence of a liberal bias in the media it also seems somewhat related to this situation:
"CBS tightened its policy to forbid all political activity."
"Both CNN and NPR prohibit political activity by all journalists, no matter their assignment."
"The NBC policy does not outright allow or forbid donations but requires approval of the president of NBC News."
"Salon.com decided to forbid political donations by all editorial staff."
"The [New York] Times policy, which forbids donations, says that it applies to freelance writers as well as staffers, while they are on Times assignments."
"ABC forbids political activity by journalists."
All of this seems to fall in line with the part of the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists under the "Independent" section:
A bit ironic that the "indpendent" issues are what appear to be hurting this "independent" journalist's credibility in an "independent" media center.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Here's a longer version of the SPJ's Code of Ethics (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp)
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
Journalists should:
—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Journalists should:
— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
Two things:
First, regarding the ACLU letter on behalf of UCIMC...at the UCIMC website and postings section, the editor that goes by the handle of ML specifically states, a number of times in the "Kicked out of Press Conference" thread and other threads, that their website and posting section is specifically not a blog. Yet the letter from the ACLU lawyer states Dolinar is there as a representative of the "Urbana-Champaign Independant Media Center's newspaper (the Public I) and its internet blog (at www.ucimc.org)." So which is it?
Second, regarding Glock21's linking to the story from MSNBC...i read through that story earlier today, and some of the responses given by individuals named in the article as making donations (the reporter and staff that produced the article contacted a large number of fellow reporters for this story). The responses generally fell into various categories of "yeah, I did make that donation, but didn't know it was against company policy", or "My spouse made the donation from a joint checking account", or "Yeah, I made the donation, but i'm not a political reporter, i'm a food/movie/technology/etc reporter"...there were a few "I don't want to talk about this" comments. And one quite surreal series of statements from Gideon Yago about his contributions...as someone who's young enough to have grown up with MTV as a constant in my TV viewing choices, I find it disingenious at best and downright ignorant at worst for Yago to claim "We're not a traditional news network in the sense of NBC or Fox or CBS." when MTV News [my emphasis] is the division he reports for, he covers political stories and how they affect "young people" and so on...
First, regarding the ACLU letter on behalf of UCIMC...at the UCIMC website and postings section, the editor that goes by the handle of ML specifically states, a number of times in the "Kicked out of Press Conference" thread and other threads, that their website and posting section is specifically not a blog. Yet the letter from the ACLU lawyer states Dolinar is there as a representative of the "Urbana-Champaign Independant Media Center's newspaper (the Public I) and its internet blog (at www.ucimc.org)." So which is it?
Haha ... I noticed that too, and imagined UCIMC protesting against ACLU.
Regarding the political contributions made by journalists - I don't care that 90% of journalists are Democrats/liberals/progressives, I just want them to be honest about it, disclose thier donations/affiliations/activism, and continue doing their jobs.
These company policies of prohibiting such activism are counterproductive, to - they don't get rid of the biases, but they try to create the impression that there aren't any. Why not just be honest, admit that everyone has biases and preferences, and just be up-front about it?
IP... I agree to a point. Journalists can't be expected to have no opinions or biases of their own but unless an article or report is presented as opinion I think most people expect them to report as objectively as humanly possible in both the details and the analysis. In the case of reporters especially, if their reporting of the facts is distorted it can have damaging consequences on the lives of the people involved or lead to misguided responses by the public. Hence why I'd consider it unethical.
When it comes to having a vested monetary interest or other vested interest in the outcome of political issues that, to me at least, completely crosses the line of ethics. It reminds me of some of the White House press corp who'd phrase questions in a way that sounded like campaign rhetoric for or against Bush. Sometimes the questions themselves became more newsworthy than the answers. It was like jeopardy punditry... all campaigning has to be done in the form of a question. The more ethical journalists asked objective questions and pressed hard for answers to those questions when the speaker attempted to dodge or evade.
I don't care what a reporter's personal views are, and I think if they're doing their job, I'd never be able to figure out what they are either. Much like an actor. If a guy is playing a homicidal maniac, I really shouldn't be able to tell by his acting that he's actually really sensitive and good with kids. When someone's job is to report the facts objectively, I shouldn't be able to tell that the reporter might absolutely detest the person they're talking to or think of them as a hero. Now if the journalist is doing a commentary/opinion piece that's obviously different.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Journalists can't be expected to have no opinions or biases of their own but unless an article or report is presented as opinion I think most people expect them to report as objectively as humanly possible in both the details and the analysis. In the case of reporters especially, if their reporting of the facts is distorted it can have damaging consequences on the lives of the people involved or lead to misguided responses by the public. Hence why I'd consider it unethical."
I consider it more unethical for "journalists" to perpetuate this notion that they have no biases, or that their reporting can ever be unbiased. Such a notion is a farce, and this "Code of Ethics" should include disclosure of biases and conflicts and activism, but shouldn't seek to pretend that any given "journalist" doesn't have them.
This particular code of ethics does state that journalist should "Disclose unavoidable conflicts." But obviously discourages getting into those conflicts to begin with.
I see where you're coming from, I just believe that approach would do more harm than good, and you seem to think otherwise. I think your theory is being tested with internet based citizen journalism... and its popularity might be part of why I may be wrong. But then again I'd hate to see the news on TV end up having a bunch of Michael Moore clones mixing opinion with fact and leaving out the important details because it conflicts with their viewpoint and have the excuse that they can be biased, they disclosed it.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"But then again I'd hate to see the news on TV end up having a bunch of Michael Moore clones mixing opinion with fact and leaving out the important details because it conflicts with their viewpoint and have the excuse that they can be biased, they disclosed it."
We already have exactly this - it's been that way for decades.
"But then again I'd hate to see the news on TV end up having a bunch of Michael Moore clones mixing opinion with fact and leaving out the important details because it conflicts with their viewpoint and have the excuse that they can be biased, they disclosed it."
We already have exactly this - it's been that way for decades.
No not for decades---forever. Read a little history, especially American political history. Its amazing how the same basic arguments have been made over and over for 300 years now, usually along the same basic two party points of view, and often in the past even nastier than the way its done now. I was just reading about the war of 1812 and how one faction wanted to fight it out over various grevences with the English, along with goals of American expansion, and the other side was wanting to give up and go back to British rule rather than engage in a ruinous fight. Sound familar?
Dane, I was actually thinking of the Spanish American War and the "Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain" journalism at the time. I think we've improved a great deal since then... I'd hate to regress back to that journalistic nightmare of the past.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed