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.
Branzburg’s decision not to disclose the information the court sought was due to the belief that his integrity and effectiveness as a reporter would be tarnished if he named names. Branzburg placed a high value on the confidentiality between him and the subjects he was investigating and reporting on. He felt that if he had released the two names in the article he published that subjects in the future would be unwilling to disclose information that was vital in writing the kind of stories he so desired.
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...
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.
The right to gather news from a source is not limited to news media personnel. The
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
According to the U.S. constitution and thereunder the first amendment, the press is said to be free, and the government cannot legally prohibit this freedom. Overall, the press holds an enormous responsibility. It is the watchdog of the community, the guarder of the government and the public. They provide an unofficial form of checks and balances on the government by informing the public on what the government is doing. Through this, they can persuade the public to view things in from one perspective or another. They have been given the constitutional right to do this.
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.
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.
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
...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.
"Journalism Ethics Online Journalism Ethics Gatekeeping." Journalism Ethics for the Global Citizen. Web. 05 Dec. 2010. .
At the end of the day if adherence to moral and ethical principals is not part of how people receive a journalist's information, then where does that leave us? Most importantly if there is no truth in media, then the digital generation may lose its value in investigative reporting.
The relationship between journalism and politics is a two-way street: though politicians take advantage as best