Every single day there are crimes committed across the country, and every single day courts convene to determine who was the guilt or innocence of the people involved with the crimes. Courts require evidence and testimonies to convict an individual of a crime. The American Justice System is normally a successful system however; there are times when the system has difficulties operating to its fullest. Many of these difficulties occur when courts interact with media, specifically journalists. The court can often use information released by journalists as evidence; however, for the information to be usable a journalist must confess his or her sources. Yet, many journalists will not divulge their sources, creating difficulties for the court and in many cases, this kind of refusal of revealing sources can land a journalist in jail for contempt. Some may ask why a journalist would not want to reveal his or her sources if it helps solve a case in court. I think the answer to that question is obvious. If a journalist of any sort goes around revealing his sources to anyone and everyone, no one will provide him with information. Many informants only supply a journalist with information if the journalist can guarantee anonymity, so they would not trust a journalist who constantly reveals his sources. Consequently, individuals will begin to withhold their knowledge, which in turn, will create a “chilling effect”. A “chilling effect” occurs when the free flow of information is restricted and the public have less information available. This type of situation is unfavorable though, because people have the right to know as much as they can. There does not seem to be an easy solution to the predicament of journalist’s privilege. Do journali... ... middle of paper ... ...uld they be legally prevented from withholding it? Should journalist’s privilege only exist when their information is not crucial in the determination of the outcome of a case? Ignoring all these questions, even if a journalist was forced to reveal their sources what would we do if they refused? That would be contempt of court, so they would go to jail, but for how long would a journalist be kept in jail? If they were kept in jail for too long they would lose the opportunity to make a living. I think this is all very difficult to figure out. It seems to me that it is necessary for journalist’s privilege to exist however; it would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. I think that the judges involved in a trial are the ones who will decide if journalist’s privilege will apply. Having a judge decide is the only fair, middle ground solution that I can think of.
“The Reporter’s Privilege Compendium: An Introduction.” Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, n.d. Web. 15 November 2013.
After the article was published, Branzburg was immediately subpoenaed by the Jefferson County Court system. The court demeaned that he name the two individuals featured in the article, but he stood strong and refused to give up their names like he had promised them. Branzburg argued that the Kentucky Privilege Statute passed in 1962 protected him from having to give up the names.(1) He also argued that the First Amendment and Kentucky constitution, (Sections 1,2, and 8) protected his right not to disclose the information of the two individual’s identities.(2) However, the Kentucky courts fought back arguing that the Kentucky Privilege Statute didn’t allow a reporter to refuse to testify about things they saw, or not disclose the names of people they were in contact with. Branzburg then took his case to the Kentucky appeals court, which ruled against him once again. He continued to fight the good fight for what he thought was true and right; the case finally ended up at the Supreme Court.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
Arguing that the experiences of the McCarthy years profoundly influenced the practice of journalism, he shows how many of the issues faced by journalists in the 1950s prefigure today's conflicts over the right of journalists to protect their sources. The journalists’ treatment was unfair that is why they believed that going to jail is better than stating false facts in front of the court because they were innocent. “If you don’t stand for what you believe in, don’t risk a decision because you think you might lose, I think that is a short-sighted approach” (Alwood, 148) This is a fascinating and detailed look at one aspect of the McCarthy era that continues to influence contemporary journalism.
406-7). The media only wants sensationalism out of everything. They might leave out facts which distort the story line. We sometimes are unable to repeat exactly what we have seen without adding something to the story. Investigating must be really hard for officers. They have to figure out what has happened in the crime. They may have some eye-witnesses, which may have correct facts or they may distort the story to make it more realistic to them. The facts are important when trying to prosecute a criminal. It would be horrible to put an innocent man or woman in prison or jail. We waste valuable time by focusing on the unimportant details instead of our main focus. It is easy to put things off, to think of things that we believe that we should be doing instead of just focusing on our main task at hand. A few good examples would be on writing a paper for a class or doing a project at work. Distractions cause us to limit ourselves throughout life. Such as what we need to get done at home, if we are somewhere other than home. We should be focusing on what we are supposed to be doing at that time. We are encouraged to lie to support out ideas and views. People may state information from a website, which all the information given may be incorrect. They could just fill in lies to support what they may
The right to gather news from a source is not limited to news media personnel. The
Hayes, chapter eight). There, it was ruled that there is no constitutional privilege for journalists. Justice Byron White wrote that the grand jury plays an important, constitutional role that outweighs any burden on newsgathering that might come from the occasional subpoena to reporters. In relation to the same case, three justices wrote a checklist for when the government should be able to require a journalist to reveal his or her sources. Those were: 1. That there is probable cause to believe the journalist has clearly relevant information regarding a specific probable violation of law; 2. That the information cannot be obtained in some other way that does not so heavily infringe on the First Amendment; and 3. That there is a compelling and overriding interest in the information. Even though these guidelines only were made in a dissenting opinion, they have been frequently used in state courts and lower federal courts. In criminal cases in federal courts, the defendant 's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial or the law enforcements ' need to conduct a full investigation is considered more important (chapter eight). At the same time, the majority of the U.S. states have shield laws that gives a reporter 's privilege, but there does not exist a federal shield law. When taking into consideration that journalists are not protected in federal law in form of a reporters ' privilege or shield law, it might take some of the feeling of freedom away when writing. A press is not free, if it cannot get sources to talk about controversial matters, because they fair to be revealed in court. The press should be able to write about matters such as governmental corruption without risking going to jail when refusing to give up the sources for the story. That the U.S. government is willing to punish journalists that do not reveal their sources jeopardizes the freedom of the
The media plays a big role in shaping the people’s perceptions about the court system. Without media we would remain uneducated to the occurrences outside our social groups. Media and especially news coverage provide us with important point of contact with the rest of society. In debunking popular myths about our court system we will look at the “facts” (the truth, the actual event, a real thing). With a myth being based upon “exaggeration” or heightening of “ordinary” event in life. Myths become a convenient mortar to fill gaps in knowledge and to provide answers to questions social science either cannot answer or has failed to address. Myths tend to provide the necessary information for the construction
You want to know what people outside the court have to say otherwise the court system would become corrupt. This is why our court system is one of the greatest in the world compared to other
When the story of a kidnapped boy broke out on May 23, 1924 the mass media immediately began to develop a story about the crime. Journalists were major contributors to the solving of the crime. Two journalists, James Mulroy and Alvin Goldstein, won the Pulitzer Prize for their contributions. The journalists were the bases of public knowledge for the case and therefore had lots of power in influencing the public’s opinion. However because of this, journalist often crossed the line between fact and fiction. They used total coverage of this case—something they had never done before—and created a case with social interpretation and sensationalism. Any information they could get, t...
Section 3 of the PCC’s editor’s code of practice states “Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.” (2014) But on what terms would it be deemed obligatory for the media to invade someone’s privacy in order to get closer to a necessary truth. Investigative journalism plays a huge role in exposing those truths and can have both a negative and positive after effect. For example, in circumstances where the exposing of privacy has led to negativity it could lead to the possibility of a defamation lawsuit. Whereas exposing necessary truths such as anything unlawful or within the public’s best interest could help save lives as well as bring light to important issues that need addressing.
...publication was merely reporting and comment based from the witness’ testimony and not his personal opinion. Nevertheless, if it is that the accused is suppressed of a fair trial due to prejudicial publicity, then the case may be dismissed and if the accused was guilty, he could walk free.
During the Vietnam War, a rift between government officials and journalists emerged. The American government felt the need, for various reasons, to censor many war developments. In an attempt to act ethically, the press fought the censors, trying their hardest to report the truth to the general public. Despite claims of bias and distortion by several prominent government officials, these journalists acted completely ethically, allowing the general public to obtain a fair, informed opinion.
The relationship between journalism and politics is a two-way street: though politicians take advantage as best
In the world of journalism The First Amendment seems to be the glue that holds the media industry together. The freedom of speech and of the press is tangible power in the hands of a journalist. According to Kovach and Rosenstiel (2007, p.145-149), "Investigative journalism seeks to expose unethical, immoral and illegal behaviour by government officials, politicians as well as private citizens." This statement should not take credit away from the everyday journalist but more so bring focus to the specialise role of being able to uncover and report on hidden information with the aid of digital advancements. As time has passed the roles, goals and purpose of the media business has gone from hands-on reporting to digital reporting, which commonly named, amongst journalist in the field, as "New Media". Due to the transform in new media, this essay will examine (1) the stride journalist take during the investigative practices, (2) what factors influence how information is collected such as corporate finance and/or political agenda, and (3) with the new media penetration, can investigative journalism stay live.