In the News: Blogger Released from Prison

Here's an excerpt from a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle about blogger Josh Wolf's release from a record-setting prison term:

Josh Wolf, the blogger whose record 7 1/2 months in federal prison stirred debate about who qualifies as a journalist and what legal protections they should receive, was freed today after releasing video footage sought by prosecutors about an anarchist protest.

Wolf, 24, held in contempt by a federal judge last August for defying a grand jury subpoena, walked out of the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin at mid-afternoon after his lawyers and federal prosecutors reached a compromise, with the help of a federal magistrate.

Wolf posted the uncut video on his Web site, gave prosecutors a copy and denied under oath that he knew anything about violent incidents at the July 2005 protest. In return, his lawyers said, prosecutors agreed not to summon him before the grand jury or ask him to identify any of the protesters shown on his video.

Prosecutors' withdrawal of their demand for his testimony was the key to the deal, Wolf told reporters outside the prison gate.

"Journalists absolutely have to remain independent of law enforcement," he said. "Otherwise, people will never trust journalists."

Asked about his imprisonment -- the longest-ever for a U.S. journalist for withholding information -- Wolf said, "Absolutely, this was worth it. I would do it again if I had to." He also said his case showed the need for a federal "shield law" that would protect journalists, including bloggers, from having to disclose confidential sources or unpublished material.

California and most other states have shield laws, but they do not apply to proceedings in federal court.

It's interesting to note the various ways in which news reports label Wolf. Sometimes he's a 'journalist'; sometimes a 'blogger'. I saw him referred to as an 'independent journalist,' a 'freelance journalist,' a 'video blogger' and even an 'anarchist journalist'!

And FYI, PA does have a shield law. The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association explains:

Pennsylvania Shield Law (42 Pa.C.S.A. §5942)

When dealing with lawsuits that arise out of Pennsylvania law (lawsuits based upon violations of Pennsylvania law, including libel lawsuits taking place in federal courts), reporters are protected by what is often referred to as the Pennsylvania Shield Law. This law states:

No person engaged in, connected with, or employed by any newspaper of general circulation or any press association or any radio or television station, or any magazine of general circulation, for the purpose of gathering, procuring, compiling, editing or publishing news, shall be required to disclose the source of any information procured or obtained by such person, in any legal proceeding, trial or investigation before any government unit. Note: This statute also applies to radio and television stations as long as they maintain and keep recordings or transcripts of the actual broadcast or telecast available for inspection.

This law provides journalists with an absolute privilege against the compelled disclosure of confidential sources of information, be it from law enforcement agencies or private citizens. The Shield Law has been interpreted by the courts to include not only the names of reporters' informants, but also provides protection to documents, unpublished materials, inanimate objects, and all sources of information obtained by reporters. Therefore, in a case dealing with a violation of Pennsylvania law, reporters cannot be required to produce the names or identities of their informants, documents obtained by their informants (such as invoices or letters), or other sources of information, even if they are subpoenaed to do so.

You can read about exceptions to this law (particularly in libel cases) at their site. It doesn't appear that this law would cover bloggers not affiliated with a traditional news organization, but I don't know if that's been tested in court yet.

You can read the statement Wolf made on his release and watch the footage in question at his web site. He makes an appearance in Part II of Frontline's series, "News War."

Frontline's "News War"

Since the previous post has dropped off the page here, I wanted to remind you that the excellent series, "News War: A Four Part Investigation Into the Future of News," is still available for online viewing. Produced by PBS's Frontline, the series is divided into four parts:

• Parts I & II - Secrets, Sources & Spin
• Part III - What's Happening to the News
• Part IV - Stories from a Small Planet

I've watched Parts I & II so far. They deal mainly with the tension between the press and the government. What does the public have the right to know? When does the government have the right to secrecy? Why do journalists insist on the right to keep their sources confidential? What defenses do journalists have from government prosecution?

This series is a great way to see Communication Law in action.

A Tale of Two e-Newletters

#1: DrWeil.com

This newsletter and the site it comes from definitely have commercial goals (the profits of drweil.com's product sales go to fund his non-profit organization, which trains doctors in integrative medicine). There are several ads included in the newsletter. This means the ad-to-content ratio is pretty high, since this is a short, daily email. Each newsletter contains one or two teasers for an article, and one Q & A (actually just the question, as a link). It's so short I can see the whole thing on my email inbox page. Which is probably the reason that I don't unsubscribe - because I can scan it in seconds & make an instant decision on whether to click through or dump it.

#2: Nat Decants

I discovered Natalie MacLean's website through her award-winning book about wine, "Red, White, and Drunk All Over: A Wine-Soaked Journey From Grape to Glass." I really enjoyed her book, so it's a shame that her newsletters don't work very well. The main problems are that they are made up of massive blocks of text, and the text goes on and on. The newsletter would benefit from making better use of HTML capabilities by laying out text on the page in chunks and subdividing articles. Although the newsletter only comes once a fornight, I've yet to read one through. I tried once, but gave up 15 min. later with the end still not in sight.

New Study Challenges Conventional Web Wisdom

A new survey by the Poynter Institute found that web news readers have a greater attention span than print readers, according to a Reuters report.

"The EyeTrack07 survey by the Poynter Institute, a Florida-based journalism school, found online readers read 77 percent of what they chose to read while broadsheet newspaper readers read an average of 62 percent, and tabloid readers about 57 percent.

Sara Quinn, director of the Poynter EyeTrack07 project, said this was the first large public study internationally to compare the differences between how people read the news online and in newspapers.

She said they were surprised to find that such a large percentage of story text was read online as this exploded the myth that Web readers had a shorter attention span."

Some traditional notions were reinforced: readers were more attracted to and retained more information from stories presented in alternative formats like Q & A, lists, short sidebars, and timelines.

Read the full article here.

Media Ownership Update

You may have heard that the FCC is holding a series of public hearings on the issue of media ownership, but you may not know exactly what's at stake.

The activist website StopBigMedia explains a new FCC proposal to further relax media ownership rules, highlighting two particular protections that are on the block:

The rule on "newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership," which prevents companies from owning a television or radio station and the major daily newspaper in the same area.

The local ownership caps that limit a company from owning more than one television station in most markets. (They can own two in larger markets as long as there are at least eight other competitors.)

At least on the surface, it would seem that protecting localism and diversity in the media (what's left of them, anyway) should be a high priority for the good of local communities. However, a recent AP article challenges that assumption. "Who Cares About Ownership Rules?" argues that in this time of rapidly changing technology, the media landscape is being transformed in ways that mean the ownership debate over traditional platforms is already yesterday's news. The internet is the disputed territory now, and net neutrality the burning issue.

Meanwhile, the FCC's public hearings continue. About 300 people turned out for its third hearing, which was held in February in Harrisburg, PA. Four companies control 79% of the local news in that market. Here's an excerpt from a Feb. 24th Patriot-News (owned by New Jersey-based Advance Publications) article about the meeting:

The morning public-comment portion of the hearing was dominated by an organized effort by the Pennsylvania Association of Broadcasters. More than 50 television reporters and anchors and their stations' nonprofit organization partners lined up in front of the microphones to talk about the good work they do.

Richard Wyckoff, the president of PAB, said the testimony at the first two hearings were an unbalanced look at the industry.

"We wanted to make sure the record was complete, that our story be put out there," Wyckoff said.

Whether that was an effective strategy remains to be seen.

"I'm happy they invited so many of their folks out, it's a perspective that's valuable, but it's a small part of the issues we need to discuss," Commissioner Michael J. Copps said during a break. "What we've heard is one dimension."

Ownership rules were the intended topic of the day, but the broadcaster turnout was a continuing theme.

Screen writer Elizabeth Hainstock, a former broadcaster and publisher of Central PA magazine, called the testimony "self-serving and embarrassing. They're just doing their jobs."

The FCC is required by Congress to reconsider all its rules every few years. The next hearing is scheduled for April 30 in Tampa, Fla.

I tried to find out how to contact the FCC, but their server was down. You can visit the FCC's website for more information.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin.

Amazon.com Review

It's hard to deny the appeal of Amazon.com's highly personalized approach to e-commerce.

When you pull up their homepage, they greet you by name, as if you were an old friend. They remember what you've bought recently, and are ready with suggestions for similar items. What's this? A new vegetarian Italian low-fat seasonal cookbook? Don't mind if I do. There's even a tab for a whole page dedicated to your likes and dislikes. Oh, really - you shouldn't have!

And it doesn't stop there. Amazon automatically shows you "Listmania" and "So You'd Like to..." lists and guides that are related to the item you're looking at. Click on The Non Designer's Design Book and you're presented with lists of design books and guides to learning design that were created by other customers. Some of those customers may be professional designers. Every item can be rated and reviewed by customers, and you can link to your favorite customers so that you can read all their reviews, lists and guides. It's like a big happy family of people buying stuff.

You might think that you couldn't possibly get into too much trouble at Amazon's site - i mean, how much can you buy in one sitting without budgetary alarm bells going off? But Amazon has some convenient ways around your prudish binge-shopping aversion. Your personal Shopping List is a place to store all those items you can't buy today, but don't want to forget about either. So Six Feet Under Season Five will be right there waiting for you whenever you decide to stop by again.

And when that list hits 50, 100, or some other completely unmanageable number of items? Two words, baby: Wish List. Now you can tell the whole world exactly what you want for Christmas - Grandma's day-of-the-week underpants be damned!

Checkout is a breeze. Ah yes, they know where you live and how you'd like to pay. Put it on my Amazon VISA, naturally. And look at that. Amazon tells you exactly how much money you've saved. Who pays retail anymore, anyway?

Impatient much? Those with control issues can track their packages from their account page. Or distract yourself by browsing the latest personalized e-newsletter Amazon sent you. It's filled with things they just know you'll love. Actually, who couldn't use another [indie rock album/gripping new memoir/subscription to a magazine I don't have time to read]? I'll take it!

Fact is, if you shop there, Amazon probably knows you better than your mother, your lover, or your parish priest. Which would be chilling if it didn't come with free shipping.

Tune Out & Drop In

Like any junkie, I had my drug of choice. Oh, they were all a good time, but if you really wanted to hypnotize me for hours on end, it was HGTV that could be counted on to turn me into a square-eyed zombie.

And like many addicts, the seeds of my problem were sown early on. I'm part of a whole generation of kids for whom the TV really did function as a kind of babysitter. In a society where two (over)working parents are the norm, where family units are often isolated even from others in their own neighborhood, and where the world outside the front door is seen as vaguely dangerous, it is oh so easy to plunk the kids down in front of the TV. Just for a while.

But what of the long term effects?

Kill the Babysitter!

Some of you may remember the Cable Guy - not Larry the Cable Guy, of Blue Collar Comedy fame - the 1996 movie starring Jim Carrey. I searched high and low on the web for a video clip of the climax of that film (alas, no luck), where Carrey's character tries to destroy a broadcast satellite because of the toll tv had taken on his life.

A couple of years ago I, too, was feeling fed up with TV. I decided that it had a lot to answer for:

• leads to rampant time suckage
• distorts our sense of reality
• causes us to miss out on real life
• dulls critical thinking
• presents warped values as the norm
  
• promotes consumer culture
• encourages disengagement with real issues
• In sum, it keeps us politically passive & economically active

It was time to "kill the babysitter!"

Rehab

So, I stopped watching TV. Not all at once, mind you. The shock would have been too great. But gradually, until I was down to three shows (Lost, the Amazing Race, Independent Lens), then two, then none.

It was very quiet.

Soon I started filling up my time with other things. I read more. I went hiking. I started gardening and learning to cook. I went to concerts and ball games and hung out more with my friends. I listened to NPR and ended up more informed about current events than I ever had been with access to 24 hour cable news networks.

My life got a lot more interesting.

TV Turnoff Week: April 23 -29

These days, I watch TV selectively. I don't think that TV is inherently evil, I just try to sort the wheat from the piles & piles of chaff. If I want to watch a series, I rent it on DVD (no commercials!). Once in a while - if I'm not busy with my real life - I'll watch a favorite show, like "Good Eats" on the Food Network. I'm making conscious choices about how to spend my time and what to expose my mind to.

National TV Turnoff Week is one month away. If you can't imagine how you'd fill your time without the tube, consider detoxing for just one week, and discover what 'reality' means when it's not being used ironically.