Continue with the presentations assignment from last week. + plus...remind me about the BBQ in Nov.

Welcome back to the second semester. Your assignment for next week is a presentation, for which the details are outlined on page 49 of the text. However you do not have to compare countries. You should make your own choice and compare something that you are interested in. Use visuals as part of your comparison and use as many comparisons as you need. Looking forward to some great speeches next week.

Hope you all had a good summer and are looking forward to the fall semester. To get started take a look here at a great presentation: http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_cameron_tedxyyc.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2010-09-14&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email

It should get you warmed up for next week ;>}

How many of you are aware of 'WikiLeaks" and the controversy over their release of some of the American army videos on the war in Iraq? This has become a very important question for journalists everywhere. Research the above and read the following as I would like to discuss it in class:


by Mike Masnick

Tue, Aug 31st 2010 3:32am


Filed Under:
journalism, shield law

Companies:
wikileaks
Shameful News Industry Willing To Sacrifice Wikileaks To Get Shield Law
from the bad-precedent dept

A few weeks ago, we noted, with some disappointment, that the politicians who had been pushing for a much needed federal shield law for journalism, Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, were taking the politically expedient route of adding a specific amendment designed to keep Wikileaks out of the bill's protections. Apparently, a bunch of newspaper folks have stepped forward to support this move. Douglas Lee, at The First Amendment Center has an opinion piece calling those people out for sacrificing their overall principles just to get the shield law approved. The whole thing is a great read, but a few key snippets:

It doesn't seem all that long ago that representatives of the newspaper industry would have recoiled from working with Congress to deny legal protection to anyone who leaked confidential or classified documents. Today, however, they seem happy to be doing so.

Lee then goes on to quote various industry reps distancing themselves from Wikileaks and putting it down as "not journalism." He also quotes them admitting that they feel they have to throw Wikileaks under the bus, or the law won't get passed. He then calls them out on the impact of that decision, hinting at the fact that at least some of this might be due to traditional journalists simply not liking new upstarts that are changing the game -- like Wikileaks.

As comforting as it might be to "real" journalists to incorporate editorial oversight into a shield law and to use it to distinguish further between the "us" who are entitled to the law's protections and the "them" who are not, at least two dangers exist in that approach.

First, does anyone -- including the most mainstream of traditional journalists -- really think it a good idea that Congress and judges define, analyze and evaluate what is appropriate "editorial oversight"? For decades, news organizations have struggled to resist those efforts in libel cases and, so far, those struggles have succeeded. If those same organizations now invite legislators and judges into their newsrooms to see how worthy their reporters are of protection under a shield law, they shouldn't be surprised if the legislators and judges decide to stay.

Second, is the free flow of information really served if the act's protections are denied to those who don't have or practice editorial oversight? As Schumer acknowledged in his statement, the act already contains language that would limit or deny protection to those who provide or publish classified military secrets. Specifically exempting WikiLeaks and other organizations that might otherwise qualify for protection under the act in at least some cases seems designed not to enhance the free flow of information but to channel that information to mainstream sources.

It is the nature of politics today to compromise principles to get things through, but this move certainly seems unfortunate -- and one that I imagine many news organizations will regret down the road.