“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without
newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment
to prefer the latter."-Thomas Jefferson, 1787
With this dramatic quote, the father of our Declaration of Independence made an extremely powerful statement about a free press’ role in American society: independent media is the fourth estate, just as important to the welfare of a nation the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
The foundation of this estate is increasingly under attack, however, by an overzealous judiciary attempting to permanently check the powers of this estate. On June 5, 2005, Mississippi Circuit Judge Robert Bailey ruled that (Jackson) Clarion-Ledger reporter Ann Radelat must provide the information of a source that gave her a confidential memo under penalty of arrest. In 2004, Rhode Island television reporter Jim Taricani was sentenced to six months in prison for refusing to reveal a source who provided him a tape of an alleged bribe. In 2003, though the circumstances of her arrest have since become more dubious, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller was imprisoned for weeks for refusing to name the government source who leaked the information of a CIA spy.
These cases, and hundreds more like them, demonstrate the need for a defense for reporters and their sources. This defense is a federal shield law. Though some states, including Arizona, have their own shield laws, 17 states do not and many others have very weak laws in place. Currently there are three bills in Congress that would shield reporters from prosecution, the most comprehensive of which is the Free Speech Protection Act of 2005. Introduced by Senator Chrisropher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, the bill would provide a variety of individuals in a variety of media (including, coincidentally, bloggers) with protection against far reaching subpoenas, like those in the cases above. Though there are exceptions to the shield, the bill provides much greater protection than reporters currently enjoy.
What is more compelling about this issue is that a federal shield law is not simply a desire of those within the media; the majority of Americans support the idea as well. According to a First Amendment Center 2004 survey, when given the simple statement “Journalists should be allowed to keep a news source confidential,” the majority — 72 percent — said they strongly or mildly agreed, while only 23 percent mildly or strongly disagreed, with 4 percent unsure. Clearly, these citizens understand the importance of an independent media in their society. As editors at the New York Times, one of the very institutions under attack in this conflict, eloquently wrote:
"The specter of reporters being imprisoned merely for doing their jobs is
something that should worry everyone who cherishes the First Amendment and the
essential role of a free press in a democracy."
Underlying the entire federal shield law debate is a simple fact: democracies need the light of a free press to survive. Without an informed electorate, corruption thrives, political interest atrophies, and an authoritarian, illegitimate government rises from the waste. In a time when news has become more fickle and less hard-hitting, it is tremendously important that journalists feel the duty and right to fully investigate wrongdoing and to report the information to the people. With the danger of lawsuits standing in both them and their sources way, there is no way this can be achieved. Thomas Jefferson was wrong: there is no choice between newspapers and (democratic) governments. They come together or they die alone. It’s time America had a federal shield law that proves we understand that.
2 comments:
• Does the title at least announce the topic, if not state the author's position on the topic? Can you tell by reading the title what the author is about to discuss? If not, do you think that is an effective strategy? Why? The title announces the topic and shows that the author will be discussing something that her thinks is needed.
• Is the thesis/claim stated clearly? Is it well-placed within the argument? Once I read a little bit into the first and second paragraphs I understand that the author is writing to say that courts are becoming too involved in journalism. However, at the beginning I could tell if he was trying to support or trying to go against the quote in the beginning. It’s not until almost halfway through the paper that I read anything about the Federal Shield Law.
• Can you determine who the author's intended audience is? Do you think that the intended audience is the same as the real audience? I think the intended audience are people who are educated but don’t necessarily know the extreme things that are happening behind the scenes between journalists and the government. I think this is the same as the real audience.
• Has the author made an emotional appeal or used some other strategy (humor, perhaps) to catch the audience's interest? Is that strategy effectively employed throughout the argument? The author uses a famous quote by Thomas Jefferson that I think is very effective in beginning the paper.
• Is the author's argument and position clear within the first paragraph or so? I can tell from the beginning that the author thinks that something needs to be done about allowing for a free press however I don’t see until the last paragraph that he is going against the beginning quote saying that the press and government need to work together and therefore need this law.
• Does the author need to include any additional background information or clarify something that the audience may not know? I think the author educates the reader sufficiently.
• What style or tone has the author adopted? Is it appropriate for the medium? The author has adopted a very serious medium. I think that the argument is well written and it is a good paper but it seems that the way it’s written isn’t necessarily suited for a blog.
• Has the author attempted to find common ground with the audience? How? I don’t really feel like the author has attempted to find common ground with the audience.
• Has the proper kind of evidence been used? Is the evidence persuasive? Yes, the author gives sufficient examples of what the current situation has resulted in.
• What strategies for relating to the audience or presenting evidence has the author employed that are specifically suited to the medium? Are they effective? He has included hyperlinks but I think the way they are put in the paper make it hard for the reader to concentrate on what they are reading and where the hyperlink will take them.
• Does it have a conclusion that respects the audience? For instance, "there is no other way to see this problem" or "any reasonable person would agree with me" alienates anyone who might still have doubts, pushing them away even as you try to draw them in. On the other hand, something like, "I have tried to show X, and I hope I've managed to convince you, or at least give you something to think about" allows the audience the space to consider your argument without forcing them to choose sides immediately. The conclusion clearly restates what he has been saying but doesn’t really relate to the reader at all. It just has a “this is what I’ve said, this is what needs to be done, that’s that” feeling.
• Have all sources been hyperlinked? Yes
• Have all quotations and paraphrases been properly attributed and set off with signal phrases? (e.g., "Jane Doe said," "as Tom Smith wrote in the Arizona Republic, " etc. ) Yes
• Is the paper properly constructed? Does it have a claim, evidence, a "rebuttal," and a conclusion? I don’t see any rebuttal but I think it’s a subject that doesn’t necessarily call for one.
• Can you find a "rebuttal" or section in which the author acknowledges alternative points of view, opinions, or options? Does it need one? No
• Are there any examples of sexist, racist, or other language that might be offensive to the audience? No
• How strong are the logos, ethos, and pathos of the work? What might the author do to improve them? The author writes in a very educated way and seems to be very educated on the matter. He uses quotes from very reputable sources and makes a strong argument.
• What other suggestions could you offer--as a real reader, if not the intended reader--to improve the work? I think it’s really well written but, like I said before, the vocabulary used and the feeling of the paper doesn’t seem to really fit in a blog setting.
The title announces the topic in a professional manner and tells the reader what they are going to read about.
The thesis is well placed in a response to a quote by Thomas Jefferson.
I think that the intended and real audience is the American people, in general.
The author uses emotional appeal by making the reader see the punishment that journalists are facing for doing their jobs. Through the entire argument the reader must think about how much we value the news while seeing how harshly the journalists are being treated.
The author’s position is very clear early on in the argument.
The author is very effective in addressing the audience’s needs and he gives enough information for the reader to understand his argument.
The author takes a very defensive yet professional tone. I think it works magically for this piece.
The author finds common ground by making us understand just how important freedom of press is for us and our government.
The author uses a lot of evidence and he uses it effectively by transitioning it into his writing. He uses specific cases that give the reader an understanding of the situation and these cases also help get the reader on his side.
The conclusion is very effective. It basically sums up the entire argument by telling the audience that without freedom of press our democracy will suffer. It is hard hitting and persuasive.
All sources are hyperlinked
Quotes and paraphrase are done properly
Thomas Jefferson’s opinion is stated but no one in the contrary. I suppose other opinions could have been addressed but it’s not really necessary.
There is nothing offensive.
Logos, ethos, and pathos are strong.
I think this blog is great and I’m glad that someone is addressing this important matter. Great work!
Post a Comment