Invasion of Privacy
Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion
Invasion of Privacy: Publication of private facts
Invasion of Privacy: False light
Misappropriation
Invasion of Privacy: Right of publicity
9 Keys to Avoiding Invasion of Privacy Suits
Other newsgathering concerns
Invasion of Privacy: Defenses
Invasion of privacy: Reporter's privacy checklist
Surreptitious recording
Surreptitious Recording: State hidden camera statutes
Confidential sources and information
Confidential sources and information: Legislative protection of news sources
Confidential Sources and Information: Constitutional privilege protects sources
Confidential Sources and Information: A reporter's obligation to a source
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Lecture notes 17
Confidential Sources and Information: What to do when you are subpoenaed
Receiving a subpoena does not mean the marshal will be coming to the door to arrest you. It is simply notice that you have been called to appear at a deposition or other court proceeding to answer questions or to supply certain documents.
You may not ignore a subpoena, however. If you fail to appear at the time and place specified you could be held in contempt of court, and fined or imprisoned, or both.
If you are subpoenaed, there are certain steps you should take immediately.
Under no circumstances should you comply with the subpoena without first consulting a lawyer. It is imperative that your editor or your news organization's legal counsel be advised as soon as a subpoena is served so a plan of action can be developed.
If your state has a shield law, the lawyer must determine whether it applies to the information sought and to the type of proceeding involved. Even if your state does not have a shield law, state courts may have recognized some common law or constitutional privilege that will protect you.
Working with your editor, the lawyer will then recommend a strategy for handling the subpoena, taking into account your news organization's policy governing compliance with subpoenas and revelation of unpublished information or the names of sources.
If a subpoena requests only published or broadcast material, your newspaper or station may elect to turn over these materials without dispute, as a matter of policy. If the materials sought are unpublished, such as notes or outtakes, or concern confidential sources, it is unlikely that your employer has a policy to turn over those materials voluntarily.
Every journalist should be familiar with the news organization's policy for retaining notes and drafts. Follow the rules and do so consistently. If your news organization has no formal policy, talk to your editors about establishing one. Never destroy notes, tapes, drafts or other documents once you have been served with the subpoena.
In some situations, your news organization may not agree that sources or materials should be withheld, and may try to persuade you to reveal the information to the party issuing the subpoena. If the interests of your news organization differ from yours, it may be appropriate for you to seek separate counsel.
http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c04p05.html
Lecture notes 16
Confidential Sources and Information: A reporter's obligation to a source
Subpoena battles typically arise out of a journalist's commitment to keep his or her source confidential. Many reporters consider their promises to confidential sources to be sacred, and routinely have faced jail to protect their sources.
In 1991, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a confidential source may sue a news organization that reveals his identity without his consent.6 The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect journalists from such suits, and left it to the states to decide whether media organizations would be subject to ordinary rules of contracts and "promissory estoppel" (in which a court enforces a promise made to a party who relied on it to his detriment).
Many news organizations have reexamined their policies on whether reporters have the authority to promise unconditional confidentiality to a source, or whether such undertakings can be overruled by editors. You should familiarize yourself with the policy in effect at your news organization.
Subpoena battles typically arise out of a journalist's commitment to keep his or her source confidential. Many reporters consider their promises to confidential sources to be sacred, and routinely have faced jail to protect their sources.
In 1991, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a confidential source may sue a news organization that reveals his identity without his consent.6 The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect journalists from such suits, and left it to the states to decide whether media organizations would be subject to ordinary rules of contracts and "promissory estoppel" (in which a court enforces a promise made to a party who relied on it to his detriment).
Many news organizations have reexamined their policies on whether reporters have the authority to promise unconditional confidentiality to a source, or whether such undertakings can be overruled by editors. You should familiarize yourself with the policy in effect at your news organization.
Lecture notes 15
Confidential Sources and Information: Constitutional privilege protects sources
The issue of whether the First Amendment creates a privilege to withhold confidential information came before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 in a trilogy of cases decided together under the name Branzburg v. Hayes.3 The Court ruled that reporters have no First Amendment right to refuse to testify and answer all questions before grand juries if they actually have witnessed criminal activity.
However, Justices Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart recognized a qualified constitutional privilege in separate opinions. Two other justices joined Stewart. These four justices, together with Justice William O. Douglas, who dissented in a separate opinion, gave the qualified constitutional privilege a majority.
Since Branzburg, many federal and state courts have acknowledged the existence of some form of qualified constitutional privilege. Where the privilege is recognized, the courts generally utilize a three-part balancing test to assess whether the subpoenaed information is clearly relevant and material to the pending case, whether it goes "to the heart of the case" and whether it could be obtained from other sources besides the media.
The Branzburg ruling is usually strictly applied to any journalist subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, especially if the reporter was a witness to a crime. When an important criminal proceeding is at stake, courts may find that the public interest is better served by compelling the reporter to testify.
In criminal trials, many courts apply the three-part balancing test to determine whether the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront all witnesses against him outweighs the reporter's need for confidentiality. The decision usually comes down to whether the information sought is clearly essential to the proof of the crime, or to the defendant's defense.
Additionally, many states will not allow reporters to assert shield law protections to avoid testifying if they witness criminal activity.4
A reporter is most likely to enjoy at least a qualified constitutional privilege in civil cases to which he or she is not a party. The courts frequently find that the public interest in protecting the reporter's news sources outweighs the private interest in compelling the reporter's testimony.
In libel cases, however, reporters who are defendants may face demands to reveal their confidential sources, particularly if the contested information is the basis of the allegedly defamatory reports.
Public officials and public figures, who must demonstrate actual malice, argue that they need to know the names of confidential sources (if any exist) to demonstrate that the reporters knew their stories were false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth. These plaintiffs also argue that access to unpublished information is necessary to determine if the selection of information for a news story showed actual malice on the part of the news organizations.
A number of trial courts have held that before a reporter can be compelled to testify in libel cases, the plaintiff must prove by substantial evidence that the challenged statement was published and is both factually untrue and defamatory.
The plaintiff also must prove that reasonable efforts to discover the information from alternative sources have been made, and no other reasonable source is available. Further, these plaintiffs must show that the informant's identity is needed to properly prepare the case.
Courts also have begun to recognize that subpoenas issued to non-media entities who hold a reporter's telephone records, credit card transactions, or similar material may threaten editorial autonomy, and the courts may apply the reporter's privilege if the records are being subpoenaed in order to discover a reporter's confidential sources.5
The issue of whether the First Amendment creates a privilege to withhold confidential information came before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 in a trilogy of cases decided together under the name Branzburg v. Hayes.3 The Court ruled that reporters have no First Amendment right to refuse to testify and answer all questions before grand juries if they actually have witnessed criminal activity.
However, Justices Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart recognized a qualified constitutional privilege in separate opinions. Two other justices joined Stewart. These four justices, together with Justice William O. Douglas, who dissented in a separate opinion, gave the qualified constitutional privilege a majority.
Since Branzburg, many federal and state courts have acknowledged the existence of some form of qualified constitutional privilege. Where the privilege is recognized, the courts generally utilize a three-part balancing test to assess whether the subpoenaed information is clearly relevant and material to the pending case, whether it goes "to the heart of the case" and whether it could be obtained from other sources besides the media.
The Branzburg ruling is usually strictly applied to any journalist subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, especially if the reporter was a witness to a crime. When an important criminal proceeding is at stake, courts may find that the public interest is better served by compelling the reporter to testify.
In criminal trials, many courts apply the three-part balancing test to determine whether the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront all witnesses against him outweighs the reporter's need for confidentiality. The decision usually comes down to whether the information sought is clearly essential to the proof of the crime, or to the defendant's defense.
Additionally, many states will not allow reporters to assert shield law protections to avoid testifying if they witness criminal activity.4
A reporter is most likely to enjoy at least a qualified constitutional privilege in civil cases to which he or she is not a party. The courts frequently find that the public interest in protecting the reporter's news sources outweighs the private interest in compelling the reporter's testimony.
In libel cases, however, reporters who are defendants may face demands to reveal their confidential sources, particularly if the contested information is the basis of the allegedly defamatory reports.
Public officials and public figures, who must demonstrate actual malice, argue that they need to know the names of confidential sources (if any exist) to demonstrate that the reporters knew their stories were false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth. These plaintiffs also argue that access to unpublished information is necessary to determine if the selection of information for a news story showed actual malice on the part of the news organizations.
A number of trial courts have held that before a reporter can be compelled to testify in libel cases, the plaintiff must prove by substantial evidence that the challenged statement was published and is both factually untrue and defamatory.
The plaintiff also must prove that reasonable efforts to discover the information from alternative sources have been made, and no other reasonable source is available. Further, these plaintiffs must show that the informant's identity is needed to properly prepare the case.
Courts also have begun to recognize that subpoenas issued to non-media entities who hold a reporter's telephone records, credit card transactions, or similar material may threaten editorial autonomy, and the courts may apply the reporter's privilege if the records are being subpoenaed in order to discover a reporter's confidential sources.5
Lecture notes 14
Confidential sources and information: Legislative protection of news sources
Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have adopted shield laws affording the media varying degrees of protection against subpoenas.2 Some shield laws protect reporters from forced disclosure of their confidential news sources, but not of unpublished material. Other laws provide absolute or qualified protection according to the type of legal proceeding involved (civil or criminal) or the role of the journalist in the proceeding (defendant or independent third party).
In many states without shield laws, state courts have recognized some form of qualified privilege. In others, state constitutions may include "free press" provisions, which are similar to the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections and afford qualified protection. There are several states, however, such as Hawaii and Wyoming, where no privilege to protect unpublished sources or information has been recognized by the courts or legislatures.
Reporters should become familiar with the scope of their state's privilege to withhold confidential sources and information, as recognized by a shield law, state constitution or in case law.
Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have adopted shield laws affording the media varying degrees of protection against subpoenas.2 Some shield laws protect reporters from forced disclosure of their confidential news sources, but not of unpublished material. Other laws provide absolute or qualified protection according to the type of legal proceeding involved (civil or criminal) or the role of the journalist in the proceeding (defendant or independent third party).
In many states without shield laws, state courts have recognized some form of qualified privilege. In others, state constitutions may include "free press" provisions, which are similar to the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections and afford qualified protection. There are several states, however, such as Hawaii and Wyoming, where no privilege to protect unpublished sources or information has been recognized by the courts or legislatures.
Reporters should become familiar with the scope of their state's privilege to withhold confidential sources and information, as recognized by a shield law, state constitution or in case law.
Lecture notes 13
Confidential sources and information
The use of subpoenas to force journalists to disclose their confidential news sources and unpublished information significantly intrudes on the newsgathering process.
Apart from diverting staff and resources from newsgathering, subpoenas issued to the news media present serious First Amendment problems. The forced disclosure of sources or information threatens the constitutional right to a free press by undercutting the media's independence from government and deterring coverage of matters likely to generate subpoenas. Indeed, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia (3rd Cir.) has recognized that "the interrelationship between newsgathering, news dissemination, and the need for a journalist to protect his or her source is too apparent to require belaboring."1
The use of subpoenas to force journalists to disclose their confidential news sources and unpublished information significantly intrudes on the newsgathering process.
Apart from diverting staff and resources from newsgathering, subpoenas issued to the news media present serious First Amendment problems. The forced disclosure of sources or information threatens the constitutional right to a free press by undercutting the media's independence from government and deterring coverage of matters likely to generate subpoenas. Indeed, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia (3rd Cir.) has recognized that "the interrelationship between newsgathering, news dissemination, and the need for a journalist to protect his or her source is too apparent to require belaboring."1
Lecture notes 12
Surreptitious Recording: State hidden camera statutes
The laws of 13 states expressly prohibit the unauthorized installation or use of cameras in private places. In Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Utah, installation or use of any device for photographing, observing or overhearing events or sounds in a private place without the permission of the people photographed or observed is against the law. A private place is one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance.6
Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota and Utah also prohibit trespassing on private property to conduct surveillance of people there. In most of these states, unauthorized installation or use of a hidden camera, or trespassing to install or use one, is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine. In Maine, the privacy violation is a felony. In Michigan, unauthorized installation or use of a hidden camera is a felony, punishable by a $2,000 fine and up to two years in prison.7
Several states have laws prohibiting the use of hidden cameras in only certain circumstances, such as in locker rooms or restrooms, or for the purpose of viewing a person in a state of partial or full nudity.8
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c03p02.html
The laws of 13 states expressly prohibit the unauthorized installation or use of cameras in private places. In Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Utah, installation or use of any device for photographing, observing or overhearing events or sounds in a private place without the permission of the people photographed or observed is against the law. A private place is one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance.6
Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota and Utah also prohibit trespassing on private property to conduct surveillance of people there. In most of these states, unauthorized installation or use of a hidden camera, or trespassing to install or use one, is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine. In Maine, the privacy violation is a felony. In Michigan, unauthorized installation or use of a hidden camera is a felony, punishable by a $2,000 fine and up to two years in prison.7
Several states have laws prohibiting the use of hidden cameras in only certain circumstances, such as in locker rooms or restrooms, or for the purpose of viewing a person in a state of partial or full nudity.8
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c03p02.html
Lecture notes 11
Surreptitious recording
Some reporters regard tape recorders and cameras as intrusive devices that all but ensure that interviewees will be uncooperative. To others, they are invaluable newsgathering tools that create important documentary evidence of a conversation.
News organizations frequently adopt policies regarding surreptitious use of these newsgathering tools. It is critical that reporters and news organizations know the state and federal laws that govern the use of cameras and tape recorders. The summary that follows is intended as an introduction to those laws.
You may record, film, broadcast or amplify any conversation if all parties to the conversation consent. It is always legal to tape or film a face-to-face interview when your recorder or camera is in plain view. In these instances, the consent of all parties is presumed.
Of the 50 states, 38, as well as the District of Columbia, allow you to record a conversation to which you are a party without informing the other parties you are doing so. Federal wiretap statutes also permit one-party-consent recording of telephone conversations in most circumstances.1 Twelve states forbid the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties. Those states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.2
The federal wiretap law, passed in 1968, permits surreptitious recording of conversations when one party consents, "unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State." Amendments signed into law in 1986 and 1994 expand the prohibitions to unauthorized interception of most forms of electronic communications, including satellite transmissions, cellular phone conversations, computer data transmissions and cordless phone conversations.
Most states have copied the federal law. Some expand on the federal law's language and prohibit all surreptitious recording or filming without the consent of all parties. Some state statutes go even further, prohibiting unauthorized filming, observing and broadcasting in addition to recording and eavesdropping, and prescribing additional penalties for divulging or using unlawfully acquired information, and for trespassing to acquire it. In most states, the laws allow for civil as well as criminal liability.
Many of the state statutes make possession of wiretapping devices a crime even though one-party consent to taping conversations may be allowed.
Most of the state statutes permit the recording of speeches and conversations that take place where the parties may reasonably expect to be recorded. Most also exempt from their coverage law enforcement agencies and public utilities that monitor conversations and phone lines in the course of their businesses.
In general, state statutes apply to conversations that take place within a single state.
When the conversation is between parties in states with conflicting eavesdropping and wiretapping laws, federal law generally applies, although either state also may choose to enforce its laws against a violator.
If a reporter in a state that allows one-party consent taping calls a party in a state that requires two-party consent, and tapes the conversation surreptitiously — which is legal under federal law — a state with tough laws prohibiting unauthorized recording may choose to apply its laws regardless of the location of the caller or the existence of a preemptive federal statute. Unfortunately, it is still unclear whether courts will hold that the federal protection preempts the state law.3 It is important to know your state law and the law in the state into which you call before you record surreptitiously.
The federal law and many state laws make it illegal to possess and particularly to publish the contents of an illegal wiretap. Some states that allow recordings make the distribution or publication of those otherwise legal recordings a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bartnicki v. Vopper in May 2001 that the media could not be held liable for damages under the federal statute for publishing or broadcasting information that the media obtained from a source who had conducted an illegal wiretap.
The Federal Communications Commission also has adopted a policy, known as the "Telephone Rule."5 It requires a reporter who tapes a telephone conversation that will later be broadcast to inform the other party that the tape is intended for broadcast.
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c03p01.html
Some reporters regard tape recorders and cameras as intrusive devices that all but ensure that interviewees will be uncooperative. To others, they are invaluable newsgathering tools that create important documentary evidence of a conversation.
News organizations frequently adopt policies regarding surreptitious use of these newsgathering tools. It is critical that reporters and news organizations know the state and federal laws that govern the use of cameras and tape recorders. The summary that follows is intended as an introduction to those laws.
You may record, film, broadcast or amplify any conversation if all parties to the conversation consent. It is always legal to tape or film a face-to-face interview when your recorder or camera is in plain view. In these instances, the consent of all parties is presumed.
Of the 50 states, 38, as well as the District of Columbia, allow you to record a conversation to which you are a party without informing the other parties you are doing so. Federal wiretap statutes also permit one-party-consent recording of telephone conversations in most circumstances.1 Twelve states forbid the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties. Those states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.2
The federal wiretap law, passed in 1968, permits surreptitious recording of conversations when one party consents, "unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State." Amendments signed into law in 1986 and 1994 expand the prohibitions to unauthorized interception of most forms of electronic communications, including satellite transmissions, cellular phone conversations, computer data transmissions and cordless phone conversations.
Most states have copied the federal law. Some expand on the federal law's language and prohibit all surreptitious recording or filming without the consent of all parties. Some state statutes go even further, prohibiting unauthorized filming, observing and broadcasting in addition to recording and eavesdropping, and prescribing additional penalties for divulging or using unlawfully acquired information, and for trespassing to acquire it. In most states, the laws allow for civil as well as criminal liability.
Many of the state statutes make possession of wiretapping devices a crime even though one-party consent to taping conversations may be allowed.
Most of the state statutes permit the recording of speeches and conversations that take place where the parties may reasonably expect to be recorded. Most also exempt from their coverage law enforcement agencies and public utilities that monitor conversations and phone lines in the course of their businesses.
In general, state statutes apply to conversations that take place within a single state.
When the conversation is between parties in states with conflicting eavesdropping and wiretapping laws, federal law generally applies, although either state also may choose to enforce its laws against a violator.
If a reporter in a state that allows one-party consent taping calls a party in a state that requires two-party consent, and tapes the conversation surreptitiously — which is legal under federal law — a state with tough laws prohibiting unauthorized recording may choose to apply its laws regardless of the location of the caller or the existence of a preemptive federal statute. Unfortunately, it is still unclear whether courts will hold that the federal protection preempts the state law.3 It is important to know your state law and the law in the state into which you call before you record surreptitiously.
The federal law and many state laws make it illegal to possess and particularly to publish the contents of an illegal wiretap. Some states that allow recordings make the distribution or publication of those otherwise legal recordings a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bartnicki v. Vopper in May 2001 that the media could not be held liable for damages under the federal statute for publishing or broadcasting information that the media obtained from a source who had conducted an illegal wiretap.
The recording related to a local union leader's proposal to conduct violent acts in the area. The Court ruled that any claim of privacy in the recorded information was outweighed by the public's interest in a matter of serious public concern.4 The Court did not indicate whether disclosure by the media under different circumstances would be considered legal.
The Federal Communications Commission also has adopted a policy, known as the "Telephone Rule."5 It requires a reporter who tapes a telephone conversation that will later be broadcast to inform the other party that the tape is intended for broadcast.
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c03p01.html
Lecture notes 10
Invasion of privacy: Reporter's privacy checklist
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c02p09.html
Consent from the subject- Is the subject an adult?
If not, do you have parental consent?
Is the person mentally or emotionally disabled and unable to give consent? Have you obtained valid consent from a guardian or other responsible party?
Has that consent been revoked?
Is the subject currently a private or public figure? Has the person's status changed over time?
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c02p09.html
Lecture notes 9
Invasion of Privacy: Defenses
If a person consents, there can be no invasion of privacy. However, the reporter should be sure that the subject has not only consented to be interviewed, but also consented to publishing or airing the interview or photographs. When minors or legally incompetent people are involved, the consent of a parent or guardian may be necessary. A written release is essential for use of pictures or private information in advertising or other commercial contexts.
Truth can be a defense, but only in false light cases. A litigant claiming false light invasion of privacy who is involved in a matter of public interest must prove that the media intentionally or recklessly made erroneous statements about him. However, truth is not a defense to a claim based on publication of private facts.
If the public has a legitimate interest in the story as it was reported, newsworthiness can be a defense to the charge of invasion of privacy. But if the report of legitimate public interest includes gratuitous private information, publication of those private facts may be actionable.
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c02p08.html
If a person consents, there can be no invasion of privacy. However, the reporter should be sure that the subject has not only consented to be interviewed, but also consented to publishing or airing the interview or photographs. When minors or legally incompetent people are involved, the consent of a parent or guardian may be necessary. A written release is essential for use of pictures or private information in advertising or other commercial contexts.
Truth can be a defense, but only in false light cases. A litigant claiming false light invasion of privacy who is involved in a matter of public interest must prove that the media intentionally or recklessly made erroneous statements about him. However, truth is not a defense to a claim based on publication of private facts.
If the public has a legitimate interest in the story as it was reported, newsworthiness can be a defense to the charge of invasion of privacy. But if the report of legitimate public interest includes gratuitous private information, publication of those private facts may be actionable.
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c02p08.html
Lecture notes 8
Other newsgathering concerns
Subjects of news stories who cannot utilize traditional legal theories to sue the media sometimes sue news organizations under other causes of action, such as fraud or trespass. These claims have proceeded with varying success. In a case over a hidden-camera investigation by ABC News that revealed a grocery chain's unsafe practices, a federal appeals court rejected a fraud claim but allowed nominal damages for claims of trespass and breach of the duty of loyalty. The court said that ABC News employees who had gained employment with the grocer and videotaped nonpublic areas of the store could be liable for only $2 in damages.16
Journalists should be mindful of privacy issues when engaging in "ride-alongs" with law enforcement officials. In 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) held that members of a television news camera crew who taped the execution of a search warrant on private property were so closely aligned with the law enforcement officers that they became "state actors" who can be held liable for civil rights violations. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that police officers could be liable for bringing the media inside a home, but the Court declined to rule on the liability of the media defendants. The case ultimately settled out of court.17
Subjects of news stories who cannot utilize traditional legal theories to sue the media sometimes sue news organizations under other causes of action, such as fraud or trespass. These claims have proceeded with varying success. In a case over a hidden-camera investigation by ABC News that revealed a grocery chain's unsafe practices, a federal appeals court rejected a fraud claim but allowed nominal damages for claims of trespass and breach of the duty of loyalty. The court said that ABC News employees who had gained employment with the grocer and videotaped nonpublic areas of the store could be liable for only $2 in damages.16
Journalists should be mindful of privacy issues when engaging in "ride-alongs" with law enforcement officials. In 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) held that members of a television news camera crew who taped the execution of a search warrant on private property were so closely aligned with the law enforcement officers that they became "state actors" who can be held liable for civil rights violations. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that police officers could be liable for bringing the media inside a home, but the Court declined to rule on the liability of the media defendants. The case ultimately settled out of court.17
Lecture notes 7
9 Keys to Avoiding Invasion of Privacy Suits
The best hedge against invasion of privacy suits is knowledge of the law in the jurisdiction in which the photograph or videotape is shot and published or broadcast. However, the line between journalism that is protected by the First Amendment and state law, and journalism that creates liability for invasion of privacy, is rarely clear.
Before taking or publishing a questionable picture, a photojournalist might want to consider several factors:
Generally, what can be seen from public view can be photographed without legal repercussions. Photographs taken in private places require consent.
Even if people are photographed in public, beware of the context in which the picture is placed (such as an innocuous photo of recognizable teen-agers in a story about the rise of teen violence). Use caution when utilizing file footage or photographs to illustrate negative stories. Special effects can be used to render the subjects unidentifiable.
If consent is required, it must be obtained from someone who can validly give it. For example, permission from a child or mentally handicapped person may not be valid, and a tenant may not be authorized to permit photographs of parts of the building not rented by the tenant.
Consent to enter a home may not be consent to photograph it. Consent exceeded can be the same as no consent at all.
Although oral consent may protect the press from liability for invasion of privacy, written consent is more likely to foreclose the possibility of a lawsuit. However, a subjects subsequent withdrawal of consent does not bar the publication of the photograph. It simply means that the journalist may not assert consent as a defense if the subject later files suit. In some states the commercial use of a photograph requires prior written consent.
Permission from a police department to accompany officers who legally enter private property may not immunize journalists from invasion of privacy suits. In most states, authorities may deny photographers access to crime scenes and disaster areas.
Public officials and public figures, and people who become involved in events of public interest, have less right to privacy than do private persons.
In some states, using hidden cameras, or audiotaping people without their consent, may invite criminal or civil penalties.
A photograph may intrude into a persons seclusion without being published. Intrusion can occur as soon as the image is taken.
Privacy laws vary widely from state to state, and the law often is unclear within a given state. If in doubt about a situation, a call to a media lawyer or to the Reporters Committee may help you assess the risk.
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/ninekeys.html
The best hedge against invasion of privacy suits is knowledge of the law in the jurisdiction in which the photograph or videotape is shot and published or broadcast. However, the line between journalism that is protected by the First Amendment and state law, and journalism that creates liability for invasion of privacy, is rarely clear.
Before taking or publishing a questionable picture, a photojournalist might want to consider several factors:
Generally, what can be seen from public view can be photographed without legal repercussions. Photographs taken in private places require consent.
Even if people are photographed in public, beware of the context in which the picture is placed (such as an innocuous photo of recognizable teen-agers in a story about the rise of teen violence). Use caution when utilizing file footage or photographs to illustrate negative stories. Special effects can be used to render the subjects unidentifiable.
If consent is required, it must be obtained from someone who can validly give it. For example, permission from a child or mentally handicapped person may not be valid, and a tenant may not be authorized to permit photographs of parts of the building not rented by the tenant.
Consent to enter a home may not be consent to photograph it. Consent exceeded can be the same as no consent at all.
Although oral consent may protect the press from liability for invasion of privacy, written consent is more likely to foreclose the possibility of a lawsuit. However, a subjects subsequent withdrawal of consent does not bar the publication of the photograph. It simply means that the journalist may not assert consent as a defense if the subject later files suit. In some states the commercial use of a photograph requires prior written consent.
Permission from a police department to accompany officers who legally enter private property may not immunize journalists from invasion of privacy suits. In most states, authorities may deny photographers access to crime scenes and disaster areas.
Public officials and public figures, and people who become involved in events of public interest, have less right to privacy than do private persons.
In some states, using hidden cameras, or audiotaping people without their consent, may invite criminal or civil penalties.
A photograph may intrude into a persons seclusion without being published. Intrusion can occur as soon as the image is taken.
Privacy laws vary widely from state to state, and the law often is unclear within a given state. If in doubt about a situation, a call to a media lawyer or to the Reporters Committee may help you assess the risk.
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/ninekeys.html
Lecture notes 6
Invasion of Privacy: Right of publicity
Some states recognize a right of publicity, which protects a celebrity's commercial interest in the exploitation of his or her name or likeness. In some jurisdictions, this right may descend to heirs or be assigned to others after the person's death.
Although use of a famous person's name or likeness, without consent, to sell a product is usually an invasion of privacy, other infringements may not be so clear. When an Ohio television station filmed a performer's entire 15-second human cannonball act for its evening newscast, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the film posed a substantial threat to the economic value of that performance. Therefore, use of the film was a tortious appropriation of the plaintiff's professional property, the court said.13
Actress Elizabeth Taylor sued NBC, a television production company, and an author to prevent the network from using her name or likeness or using another actress to play her in a miniseries about her life. Taylor argued that the miniseries should be enjoined because it infringed upon her "right of publicity."14
The court rejected that argument, explaining that the right of publicity cannot be used to stifle commentary on the lives of public people. The court ruled that an injunction against NBC would constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint against First Amendment-protected expression. Reproductions of past events and biographies fall within the scope of protected First Amendment expression, the court said.
In a 1993 case, the U.S. Court of Appeals (6th Cir.) ordered a district court judge to vacate his order preventing distribution of a book with a jacket containing a photograph of a murder victim with red ink splattered on it to look like a blood stain. The victim's sister had filed suit claiming that the jacket violated the victim's "right of publicity." The court of appeals stated that "even minimal interference with First Amendment freedoms causes injury."15
Lecture notes 5
Misappropriation
The use of a person's name or likeness for commercial purposes without consent is misappropriation. The law protects an individual from being exploited by others for their exclusive benefit. A person's entire name need not be used. If the person could reasonably be identified, the misappropriation claim probably will be valid.11
Use of a photograph to illustrate a newsworthy story is not misappropriation. Even if a photo is used to sell a magazine on a newsstand, courts usually will not consider that a trade or commercial purpose. The line between news and commercial use is not always clear, however, and even photographs used to illustrate an article may create liability for misappropriation if the article is considered to have an overriding commercial purpose.12
lecture notes 4
Invasion of Privacy: False light
False light invasion of privacy occurs when information is published about a person that is false or places the person in a false light, is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and is published with knowledge or in reckless disregard of whether the information was false or would place the person in a false light.
Although this tort is similar to defamation, it is not the same. The report need not be defamatory to be actionable as false light. This type of invasion of privacy tends to occur when a writer condenses or fictionalizes a story, or uses stock footage to illustrate a news story.
False light includes embellishment (false material added to a story, which places someone in a false light), distortion (the arrangement of materials or photographs to give a false impression) and fictionalization (works of fiction containing disguised characters that represent real people or references to real people in fictitious articles). Some courts may consider works of fiction to be constitutionally protected expressions even if they contain characters who resemble, or clearly were based on, identifiable individuals known by the author or creator.10
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c02p04.html
False light invasion of privacy occurs when information is published about a person that is false or places the person in a false light, is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and is published with knowledge or in reckless disregard of whether the information was false or would place the person in a false light.
Although this tort is similar to defamation, it is not the same. The report need not be defamatory to be actionable as false light. This type of invasion of privacy tends to occur when a writer condenses or fictionalizes a story, or uses stock footage to illustrate a news story.
False light includes embellishment (false material added to a story, which places someone in a false light), distortion (the arrangement of materials or photographs to give a false impression) and fictionalization (works of fiction containing disguised characters that represent real people or references to real people in fictitious articles). Some courts may consider works of fiction to be constitutionally protected expressions even if they contain characters who resemble, or clearly were based on, identifiable individuals known by the author or creator.10
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c02p04.html
Lecture Notes 3
Invasion of Privacy: Publication of private facts
Publication of truthful information concerning the private life of a person that would be both highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate public concern is an invasion of privacy in some states. Liability often is determined by how the information was obtained and its newsworthiness.
Revealing private, sensational facts about a person's sexual activity, health or economic status can constitute an invasion of privacy.
Reporting news events that take place in public generally does not constitute invasion of privacy. Arrests are considered newsworthy and, therefore, the press is free to accurately report them. Even a couple's intimate moment in public, captured in a photograph, is not actionable as long as a reasonable person would not consider the picture private. Courts usually find that individuals have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when they are in public.
Public records: If information comes from a public record, such as a birth certificate, police report or judicial proceeding, the media usually are not liable for reporting it. A newspaper can print a list of people who have been granted divorces, for instance, when the information is derived from court records, no matter how embarrassing it is to the individuals.6 However, not all information kept by public agencies is considered part of the public record.
Some states restrict the release of certain information, even though it is part of an official record, by sealing the files or restricting public and news media access to certain proceedings.
However, if the press lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public concern from government sources, the state may not constitutionally punish publication of the information absent the need to further a substantial state interest.7
Reporters should use caution in relying upon semi-public documents. For example, a police detective's notes that do not become part of the official police report may not be considered to be official records. If a document relied upon by a reporter was found to be only semi-public, the reporter might not be privileged to report the information contained in it.
However, one federal appellate court has ruled that publishing information from even a secret police report is not an invasion of privacy, because there is no reasonable expectation that information given to the police will be kept secret.8
Newsworthiness: The court may consider several factors in determining whether information published is newsworthy, including the social value of the facts published, the extent to which the article intruded into ostensibly private affairs, and whether the person voluntarily assumed a position of public notoriety.
For example, in Garner v. Triangle Publications Inc.,9 a woman who had been involved in a car accident sued a reporter who revealed that she was living with a man who was not her spouse. That fact was not pertinent to the story, which was otherwise newsworthy, and the reporter was held liable.
Passage of time: The newsworthiness of a private fact may be affected by the passage of time. Problems occur when individuals who once may have been notorious but who since have been rehabilitated become subjects of historical commentaries that refer to their former crimes or indiscretions. Private facts published in a popular feature, such as a "25 Years Ago Today" column, could be considered an invasion of privacy if the subject is not considered to be a public figure or is deemed to have lost his public figure status.
Disclosed facts about both public officials and public figures are not subject to the passage of time rule. Community standards: The sensibilities of the community also must be considered when determining if a private fact should be reported. The law is not designed to protect the overly sensitive. However, if the information could be considered indecent or obscene by community standards and is not central to the story, it may be safer to eliminate it.
Lecture Notes 2
Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion
Privacy is invaded when one intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon a person's solitude or into his private area or affairs.
Intrusion claims against the media often center on some aspect of the newsgathering process. This tort may involve the wrongful use of tape recorders, cameras or other intrusive equipment. Trespass also can be a form of intrusion. In addition to liability for tortious invasions of privacy, reporters should be aware that anti-paparazzi laws may create statutory liability, sometimes both civil and criminal, for newsgathering that involves trespass or harassment. California enacted such a law in 1998, and a similar bill was considered by the U.S. Congress in 1999.3
The California Supreme Court has held that at an accident scene, audio and videotaping of rescue efforts alongside an interstate would not constitute intrusion, but taping the same accident victims once they have been moved to a rescue helicopter could be considered an invasion of privacy.5
Privacy is invaded when one intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon a person's solitude or into his private area or affairs.
Intrusion claims against the media often center on some aspect of the newsgathering process. This tort may involve the wrongful use of tape recorders, cameras or other intrusive equipment. Trespass also can be a form of intrusion. In addition to liability for tortious invasions of privacy, reporters should be aware that anti-paparazzi laws may create statutory liability, sometimes both civil and criminal, for newsgathering that involves trespass or harassment. California enacted such a law in 1998, and a similar bill was considered by the U.S. Congress in 1999.3
An actionable claim for intrusion may arise whether or not a news story is published or aired. For example, in Williams v. ABC, a plaintiff successfully sued a television station when her hip surgery was filmed without her consent.4 The presence of television cameras in private surgery was held to be an intrusion — a violation of the woman's privacy — regardless of whether the surgery footage actually was aired.
The California Supreme Court has held that at an accident scene, audio and videotaping of rescue efforts alongside an interstate would not constitute intrusion, but taping the same accident victims once they have been moved to a rescue helicopter could be considered an invasion of privacy.5
Lecture Notes 1
Invasion of privacy
Almost every state recognizes some right of privacy, either by statute or under common law. Most state laws attempt to strike a balance between the individual's right to privacy and the public interest in freedom of the press. However, these rights often clash.
The concept of a right to privacy was first articulated in an 1890 Harvard Law Review article by Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren. It took U.S. courts 15 more years to recognize it. The Georgia Supreme Court was the first to do so in Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co.,1 a case involving the use of an individual's photograph in a newspaper advertisement without his permission.
Invasion of privacy is considered a personal tort, aimed at protecting the individual's feelings — feelings often articulated by courts as "reasonable expectations of privacy." Corporations ordinarily cannot claim a right of privacy, and surviving heirs generally cannot file suit on behalf of a decedent.2
Public figures have a limited claim to a right of privacy. Past and present government officials, political candidates, entertainers and sports figures are generally considered to be public figures. They are said to have exposed themselves to scrutiny voluntarily and to have waived their right of privacy, at least in matters that might have an impact on their ability to perform their public duties.
Although private individuals usually can claim the right to be left alone, that right is not absolute. For example, if a person who is normally not considered a public figure is thrust into the spotlight because of her participation in a newsworthy event, her claims of a right of privacy may be limited.
A right of privacy can be violated by any means of communication, including spoken words. This tort is usually divided into four categories: intrusion, publication of private facts, false light and misappropriation.
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c02p01.html
Almost every state recognizes some right of privacy, either by statute or under common law. Most state laws attempt to strike a balance between the individual's right to privacy and the public interest in freedom of the press. However, these rights often clash.
The concept of a right to privacy was first articulated in an 1890 Harvard Law Review article by Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren. It took U.S. courts 15 more years to recognize it. The Georgia Supreme Court was the first to do so in Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co.,1 a case involving the use of an individual's photograph in a newspaper advertisement without his permission.
Invasion of privacy is considered a personal tort, aimed at protecting the individual's feelings — feelings often articulated by courts as "reasonable expectations of privacy." Corporations ordinarily cannot claim a right of privacy, and surviving heirs generally cannot file suit on behalf of a decedent.2
Public figures have a limited claim to a right of privacy. Past and present government officials, political candidates, entertainers and sports figures are generally considered to be public figures. They are said to have exposed themselves to scrutiny voluntarily and to have waived their right of privacy, at least in matters that might have an impact on their ability to perform their public duties.
Although private individuals usually can claim the right to be left alone, that right is not absolute. For example, if a person who is normally not considered a public figure is thrust into the spotlight because of her participation in a newsworthy event, her claims of a right of privacy may be limited.
A right of privacy can be violated by any means of communication, including spoken words. This tort is usually divided into four categories: intrusion, publication of private facts, false light and misappropriation.
Source: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c02p01.html
Short cuts
These are short cuts instead of a lengthy blog scroll
Submission of assignments:- http://alfred-massaquoi.blogspot.com/2007/11/submission-of-assignments.html
Assignment:- http://alfred-massaquoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment.html
Lecture notes on Libel and Proof of fault:- http://alfred-massaquoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/lecutures-on-libel-proof-of-fault-and.html
Libel Establishing a Case:- http://alfred-massaquoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/libel-establishing-case.html
Submission of assignments:- http://alfred-massaquoi.blogspot.com/2007/11/submission-of-assignments.html
Assignment:- http://alfred-massaquoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/assignment.html
Lecture notes on Libel and Proof of fault:- http://alfred-massaquoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/lecutures-on-libel-proof-of-fault-and.html
Libel Establishing a Case:- http://alfred-massaquoi.blogspot.com/2007/10/libel-establishing-case.html
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Submission of Assignments
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
All students who did the assignment are advised to submit same on Tuesday as against Friday as announced in class, because I shall not be in school on Friday due to some circumstances beyond my control. Hopefully, the problem will be resolved soon by next week. Sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused you.
Pleased be informed that the assignment should be taken seriously, because it shall go for your mid-semester exams.
Please do an individual work else I shall fail any student who copied from one another.
I'm afraid I shall not be in school also for Laboratory work. Rev. Mensah will kick off with you. He shall be informed. Please govern yourselves accordingly. After the mid-semester, the laboratory session shall focus on television production and presentation.
Bye! I missed you, and love you all dearly.
All students who did the assignment are advised to submit same on Tuesday as against Friday as announced in class, because I shall not be in school on Friday due to some circumstances beyond my control. Hopefully, the problem will be resolved soon by next week. Sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused you.
Pleased be informed that the assignment should be taken seriously, because it shall go for your mid-semester exams.
Please do an individual work else I shall fail any student who copied from one another.
I'm afraid I shall not be in school also for Laboratory work. Rev. Mensah will kick off with you. He shall be informed. Please govern yourselves accordingly. After the mid-semester, the laboratory session shall focus on television production and presentation.
Bye! I missed you, and love you all dearly.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Assignment
J3 Class Assignment - take note at bonus questions below
Check this out on the National Media Commission and Regulating the MEDIA http://www.ghanaweb.com/concord/article.php?ID=1291
For this assignment, students will individually write out the answers and submit on Tuesday at our next class as opposed to the instruction you received on sending the assignment via blogging.
October 24, 2007 - a radio station in Accra reported that the Concord Newspaper’s editor and a reporter have been sued by one lady, the plaintiff, in Accra for defamation. The lady’s lawyer said “the journalists are to be jailed,” according to the radio station. Questions:
1. Which radio station made the announcement?
2. What is the exact name of the newspaper whose personnel are sued for libel?
3. Which court is the lawsuit held?
4. Was it actually the Editor and the Reporter held for defamation?
5. Having scooped out the actual newspaper report, write out whether or not the story has the five elements of libel learned in class.
6. Does the plaintiff’s lawyer under the Law of Defamation have the right to demand that the two journalists jailed for libel?
7. What is the defamatory remark made against the plaintiff?
8. What is the name of the plaintiff, and what is her role in society?
9. If the Newspaper or defendant actually libeled the plaintiff, what would be the defendant’s best defenses against a libel lawsuit?
10. In your study of "Libel: Proof of Fault" how can you describe in your own words the following:
· Public officials
· Private persons
· All-purpose public figure
· Limited-purpose public figure
· On what basis can the said figures be sued?
11. Why is the criminal libel law in Ghana repealed?
12. What is the meaning of fault, and how can journalists avoid a libel suit?
Bonus
Check this out on the National Media Commission and Regulating the MEDIA http://www.ghanaweb.com/concord/article.php?ID=1291
For this assignment, students will individually write out the answers and submit on Tuesday at our next class as opposed to the instruction you received on sending the assignment via blogging.
October 24, 2007 - a radio station in Accra reported that the Concord Newspaper’s editor and a reporter have been sued by one lady, the plaintiff, in Accra for defamation. The lady’s lawyer said “the journalists are to be jailed,” according to the radio station. Questions:
1. Which radio station made the announcement?
2. What is the exact name of the newspaper whose personnel are sued for libel?
3. Which court is the lawsuit held?
4. Was it actually the Editor and the Reporter held for defamation?
5. Having scooped out the actual newspaper report, write out whether or not the story has the five elements of libel learned in class.
6. Does the plaintiff’s lawyer under the Law of Defamation have the right to demand that the two journalists jailed for libel?
7. What is the defamatory remark made against the plaintiff?
8. What is the name of the plaintiff, and what is her role in society?
9. If the Newspaper or defendant actually libeled the plaintiff, what would be the defendant’s best defenses against a libel lawsuit?
10. In your study of "Libel: Proof of Fault" how can you describe in your own words the following:
· Public officials
· Private persons
· All-purpose public figure
· Limited-purpose public figure
· On what basis can the said figures be sued?
11. Why is the criminal libel law in Ghana repealed?
12. What is the meaning of fault, and how can journalists avoid a libel suit?
Bonus
- In your study of the Judicial system, explain the lawsuit in a civil or tort as respects libel? In other words, describe a scenario where a newspaper or broadcasting medium allegedly published or made a broadcast that injured a private person's reputation. If you were the plaintiff's lawyer on what proven elements would you file a lawsuit? That is one aspect; and the other, describe a typical court proceedings of a libel case from the start to the finish.
Note
I shall be looking for originality. I shall be looking also for copyrighting. What I mean is that I will know if you copied from somewhere rather than doing the assignment on your own. I shall know too if you did a group work, because your answers shall resemble the other person's.
Just read your notes, you will find the guide and the best way to answer the questions. I'm afraid if you don't do well, you may forfeit the mid-term exams.
Answer all questions against next class. All answers shall be awarded full marks.Lecutures on Libel: Proof of Fault and Defenses
JAYEE INSTITUTE
MEDIA LAW - J3 – Lecture Notes
Alfred Massaquoi-C, Ph.D.
MEDIA LAW - J3 – Lecture Notes
Alfred Massaquoi-C, Ph.D.
Defamation, Libel and Slander Law, Proof of Fault and Defenses
Defamation
Public figures
Publication
Identification
Harm
Falsity
Faulty
Prof of fault
Public officials
All-purpose Public figure
Limited-purpose Public figure
The Meaning of Fault
Intentional Infliction of emotional Distress
Truth
Neural Report
Opinion
Consent
Anti-SLAPP
Tips on Defenses
Tips to Authors to Prevent Libel
Product Libel
Criminal Libel
Infliction of Emotional Distress
Avoiding Libel Suits
It is not unusual for attorneys to receive inquiries about defamation actions from people who are in conflicts with neighbors or other members of their communities, and have become the subjects of vicious lies. The area of law most implicated by that type of conduct is "defamation of character", a cause of action which is generally defined to include "libel" and slander".
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.
Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.
Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include: A false and defamatory statement concerning another; The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and Damage to the plaintiff. In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party.
That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print. Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.
Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may constitute defamation per se: Attacks on a person's professional character or standing; Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste; Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude; While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law.
They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.
The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation. Another defense to defamation actions is "privilege". For example, statements made by witnesses in court, arguments made in court by lawyers, statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or by judges while sitting on the bench, are ordinarily privileged, and cannot support a cause of action for defamation, no matter how false or outrageous.
A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation.
Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met.
Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.
A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.
A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.
A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter. An uncommon defense is that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice".
In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.
For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention.
For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings.
As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea. The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed.
For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world.
As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.
Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.
Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation.
Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true. In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true.
While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.
Libel: Publication
For purposes of a libel lawsuit, publication occurs when information is negligently or intentionally communicated by newspapers, magazines, books, radio or television broadcasts to someone other than the person defamed. Publication may occur through traditional or electronic means.
Internet service providers, however, are not responsible for libelous information posted by their customers unless they exercise editorial control over it. The U.S. Supreme Court refused in June 1998 to review the decision of a federal court of appeals that held the Communications Decency Act of 1996 insulates service providers from liability based on the actions of their users.3
The media can be liable for the republication of a libelous statement made by another person or entity.4 Letters to the editor containing unsupported derogatory accusations, or containing false statements, can also be the basis of a libel suit.
However, under the "fair report" doctrine, certain public and official statements can be disclosed by the media without fear of liability. In most states, accurate reports of arrests, civil and criminal trials and official statements made to, by and about law enforcement officials are privileged. Reports of this nature must be accurate and fair in order for the reporter to invoke the fair report privilege, and it is advisable that the reporter explicitly attribute the information to the official source.
A few jurisdictions also recognize a "neutral report" doctrine, which allows reporters to publish defamatory statements made by one public figure about another public figure as long as the news report does not take sides. Again, neutrality and attribution are required.
Libel: Identification
Plaintiffs must prove that the alleged defamatory publication refers to them. This element of a libel lawsuit often is referred to as the "of and concerning" principle: there can be no liability if the statement at issue is not proven to be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. Governmental entities cannot bring libel claims, nor can members of large groups (usually 25 or more).
However, if the statement at issue can be interpreted as referring to a particular person in a group, that person can sue. Also, if the offending information pertains to a majority of the members of a small group, any member of the group has standing to sue. A corporation may bring a libel claim if the alleged defamatory statement raises doubts about the honesty, credit, efficiency or prestige of that business. However, if the statements refer only to corporate officers, the corporation cannot litigate on their behalf.
Libel: Harm
The heart of a libel suit is the claim that the plaintiff's reputation was injured. In some states, harm does not need to be shown if the statements in question concern a criminal offense, a loathsome disease, a female's unchastity, or matters harming a person's business, trade, profession or office.
When any of these types of statements is involved, damage to the plaintiff's reputation is presumed. In most states, damage to reputation also is presumed when accusations of fraud, incompetence or improper behavior are made about business or professional people.
If the defamatory nature of the statements can be proven only by introducing facts that were not published as part of the original statements, a plaintiff usually must prove a monetary loss as a result of the publication to recover damages.
Libel: Falsity
It often has been said that truth is an absolute defense to libel.5 Absolute accuracy is not the appropriate criterion. Rather, the general standard is that the information must be substantially true.
Under the common law, the media defendant had the burden of proving that the statements challenged by the plaintiff were true.
The Supreme Court changed that standard for libel suits involving public officials and public figures.6 These plaintiffs are required to prove that the statements of fact were false. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps, private individuals suing for libel also must prove the statement was false if it involved a matter of public concern.7 An altered or inaccurate quote that damages the reputation of the person quoted can be actionable.
Libel: Fault
All plaintiffs must demonstrate that the news organization was at fault in some way. The Supreme Court has recognized different standards for different types of libel plaintiffs, with public officials and public figures required to show the highest degree of fault. Celebrities and others with power in a community usually are considered public figures.
Politicians and high-ranking government personnel are public officials, as are public employees who have substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs. Some courts have found that public school teachers and police officers also are public officials.
But determining if other people are private or public figures are not always easy. In some instances, private and public categories may overlap. For example, a businessperson who has high visibility because of fundraising efforts in a community may not be a public figure for purposes other than the individual's community activity, but not necessarily for all purposes.
A plaintiff who is considered a public figure or official has a higher standard of proof in a libel case than a private plaintiff. The public figure or official must prove that the publisher or broadcaster acted with "actual malice" in reporting derogatory information. "Actual malice," in libel parlance, does not mean ill will or intent to harm.
Instead, it means the defendant knew that the challenged statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. In determining whether actual malice exists, a court may examine a reporter's newsgathering techniques. Although carelessness is not usually considered reckless disregard, ignoring obvious methods of substantiating allegations could be considered reckless.
In Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton,9 the Supreme Court held that even an extreme deviation from professional standards, or the publication of a story to increase circulation, do not in themselves prove actual malice. The Court also said that while failure to investigate facts does not necessarily prove actual malice, a "purposeful avoidance of the truth" may.
Edited quotations that are not verbatim will not necessarily demonstrate actual malice as long as the alterations do not materially change the meaning of the words the speaker used. In Masson v. The New Yorker Magazine, 10 the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that some editing of quotations is often necessary, but refused to grant blanket protection to all edits that are "rational" interpretations of what the speaker said.
If the plaintiff is a private litigant, he or she must at least prove that the publisher or broadcaster was negligent in failing to ascertain that the statement was false and defamatory. Some states may impose a higher burden on private-figure litigants, especially if the story in question concerns a matter of public importance.11
Proof of Fault
Under the fault requirement all persons who sue a mass medium for libel must prove that the defendant was somehow at fault in publishing the defamatory material, that the publication (or broadcast) did not result from an innocent error. Private persons generally need prove only negligence. What the courts call a “public person” must normally prove that the defendant acted with actual malice in publishing the libel; that is, the defendant knew the material was false but still published it or exhibited reckless disregard for the truth. What the courts define as “private persons” must prove at least that the defendant acted negligently, that is, in such a way as to create an unreasonable risk of harm. The courts have ruled that there are three kinds of “public persons:”
Public officials: Persons who work for a government in a position of authority, who have substantial control over the conduct of governmental affairs, and whose position in government invites independent public scrutiny beyond the general public interest in the qualifications and performance of all government employees. Libelous comments must focus on the plaintiff’s official conduct (the manner in which the plaintiff conducts his or her job) or on the plaintiff’s general fitness to hold public office.
All-purpose public figures: Persons who occupy persuasive power and influence in the nation or in a community, persons who are usually exposed to constant media attention.
Limited-purpose public figures: Persons who voluntarily inject themselves into an important public controversy in order to influence public opinion regarding the resolution of that controversy. The key elements are:
Public controversy, the resolution of which must affect more persons than simply the participants. The outcome must have an impact on people in a community.
Plaintiffs who voluntarily thrust themselves into this controversy. An individual who has been drawn involuntarily into a controversy created by someone else (such as the press) is not a limited-purpose public figure.
Plaintiffs who attempt to influence the out come of the controversy, to shape public opinion on the subject. This implies that a plaintiff has some access to the mass media to participate in the public discussion surrounding the controversy.
Using a variety of criteria, courts have ruled that businesses can be deemed public figures in a libel suit. Persons who become public persons remain public persons throughout their lives with regard to stories published or broadcast that relate to incidents or events that occurred while they were public persons.
The Meaning of Fault
In a lawsuit against a mass medium, a private person must prove that the defendant was at least negligent in publishing the defamatory matter. Negligence has been defined as the failure to exercise reasonable care or as acting in such a way as to create a substantial risk of harm. In some states, in certain cases private persons will be required to prove more than simple negligence. They may be required to prove gross negligence, which is a standard that implies a greater degree of carelessness on the part of the defendant. An individual who has been declared to be a public person for the purpose of a libel suit must prove actual malice. Actual malice is defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. Transmitting a story with the knowledge of its falsity means that the publishers or the story knew it was not true but still communicated it to the public. To prove reckless disregard for the truth, the plaintiff must show that the publisher of the defamation had a “high degree of awareness of the probable falsity of the material” when it was published or that the publisher in fact “entertained serious doubts about the truth of the material” before it was published. The courts have established a set of three criteria to help determine whether material was published with reckless disregard for the truth. The jurists tend to look at these factors:
· Whether there was time to investigate the story or whether the material had to be published quickly
· Whether the source of the information appeared to be reliable and trustworthy
· Whether the story itself sounded probable or farfetched
If the item was hot news, if the source was a trained journalist, and if the information in the story sounded probable, there can be no finding of reckless disregard. However, if there was plenty of time to investigate, if the source of the material was questionable, or if the information in the story sounded completely improbable, courts are more likely to permit a finding of reckless disregard of the truth.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
· The defendant’s conduct was intentional or reckless.
· The defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous
· The defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff emotional distress.
· The emotional distress was severe.
The intentional infliction of emotional distress is a new tort and punishes a wide range of conduct, including the publication or broadcast of material that is outrageous and causes severe emotional distress. Courts have made it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to win such suits by placing a substantial burden of proof on the injured party. The Supreme Court added to this burden in 1988 when ruled that public-person plaintiffs would have to show actual malice as well to win their lawsuits.
Libel: Defenses
Truth is generally a complete bar to recovery by any plaintiff who sues for libel. Making sure that any potentially libelous material can be proven true can avoid needless litigation.
Fair report. Libelous statements made by others in certain settings often are conditionally privileged if the reporter, in good faith, accurately reports information of public interest. This privilege usually applies to official meetings such as judicial proceedings, legislative hearings and grand jury deliberations.
Neutral report. Although less broadly recognized, this privilege can protect the publication of defamatory statements made by one public figure about another public figure. The report must be presented in a neutral manner.
Opinion is still protected speech under the First Amendment, although the Supreme Court limited the formerly broad reach of opinion protection in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal.12 The court ruled that there is no separate opinion privilege, but because factual truth is a defense to a libel claim, an opinion with no "provably false factual connotation" is still protected. As a result of this decision, courts will examine statements of opinion to see if they are based on or presume underlying facts. If these facts are false or defamatory, the "opinion" statements will not be protected.
Consent. If a person gives permission for the publication of the information, that person cannot later sue for libel. However, denial, refusal to answer or silence concerning the statement do not constitute consent.
The statute of limitations for bringing libel suits varies from state to state. Generally the time limit for filing a libel lawsuit starts at the time of the first publication of the alleged defamation. If the plaintiff does not sue within the statutory time period, the litigation can be barred.
Although a retraction is not usually considered an absolute defense to a libel claim, it may reduce the damages a defendant must pay if found liable for defamation. Before agreeing to publish a retraction, consult an attorney.
Anti-SLAPP statutes, which permit early dismissal of lawsuits that chill the exercise of free-speech rights, may help news organizations defend some libel suits. SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation," and anti-SLAPP statutes protect those engaged in debate about controversial matters from lawsuits that would deter the exercise of their constitutional rights.13
Tips on Defenses
Libel suits usually result from stories that allege crime, fraud, dishonesty, immoral or dishonorable conduct, or stories which defame the subject professionally, causing loss of reputation or financial strength to an individual or business.
The only complete and unconditional defense to a libel claim is proof that the statement is true. Quoting a source accurately isn't enough; the defendant must convince a jury that his statements or the material in the statements he or she quoted are substantially correct.
A defendant can protect the alleged defamatory statement if the statement came from privileged sources; that is, from public records or statements at meetings of public bodies.
The Neutral Reportage Defense allows news organizations to report false accusations made by non-governmental organizations and/or individuals which have a history of responsible behavior.
A plaintiff may not recover damages for a defamatory publication to which he or she consented, or which he or she authorized, procured or invited.
In most states, public officials or figures as plaintiffs are required to prove negligence or actual malice on the part of the publisher. To prove actual malice, a person needs to show that at the time of publication or broadcast, those responsible for the story either knew it was not true or had a reckless disregarded for the truth.
Tips to Authors to Prevent Libel
It is not enough to remove a person's name from a story; if the description you use identifies that person to others in his or her immediate area, you have effectively named the person.
Anyone being questioned regarding a crime is not necessarily a suspect.
Balanced comments can help prevent libel, but the comments should be related to the original charges. Irrelevant counter charges can lead to additional libel actions.
Use "acquitted" or "innocent", rather than "not guilty" because "not" could accidentally be dropped or omitted from "not guilty" in the publication.
Libel: Product libel
Journalists who write about consumer products should be aware that their reports may be subject to product disparagement laws. In June 2002, a federal appeals court allowed a product disparagement lawsuit brought by Suzuki Motor Corporation to proceed against the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.14
The court found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the magazine rigged the results of automobile tests to give the Suzuki Samurai a "not acceptable" rating. A dissenting judge said the ruling created a standard for consumer reporting that intrudes on free expression.
Thirteen states have enacted statutes aimed specifically at restricting the "disparagement" of food products.15 The statutes generally authorize food producers to sue anyone who disparages a food product with information unsupported by reliable scientific data. Texas's food disparagement law was used in a highly publicized case brought against "The Oprah Winfrey Show" in 1998.
The plaintiffs in the case, Texas feed yard owners; claimed Winfrey caused a decrease in beef sales when she said she would never eat a hamburger again for fear of mad cow disease. Winfrey won the suit.16
Libel: Criminal libel
Fewer than half of the states have criminal defamation statutes. Some of those laws, though still on the books, have been invalidated by court decision.
Even in states where criminal libel laws exist, prosecution under those statutes is rare. Nevertheless, criminal libel laws are used against journalists from time to time, particularly when their reports are politically charged, and the person allegedly defamed has influence with a prosecutor's office.
Criminal libel laws are subject to the same constitutional requirements as civil libel law. Thus, a person charged with criminal libel of a public figure can be found guilty only if the allegedly defamatory statement is false and was made with actual malice.17
Libel: Infliction of emotional distress
Individuals sometimes sue the news media for emotional distress caused by the publication of embarrassing, truthful facts. However, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell,18 the Supreme Court ruled that public figures and public officials may not recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress without demonstrating that the material in question contained a false statement of fact that was made with actual malice.
The high court noted that editorial cartoonists and other satirists must be protected not only from libel suits, but also from suits claiming emotional distress, when caricaturing public figures or commenting on matters of public concern.
Libel: Avoiding libel suits
Check sources thoroughly. Get independent corroboration whenever possible. A source could have a vendetta against the subject and willfully or unintentionally misrepresent the facts for his or her own purposes. Confidential sources, such as government employees, may disappear or recant in the face of a lawsuit. Don't rely on someone else to be accurate.
Do not let your opinion about whether someone is a public figure or official color your decision to verify the accuracy of a story. Juries do not respond favorably to reporters who fail to confront their subjects with defamatory information and to provide them with an opportunity to comment.
If you cover the police or courthouse beat, make certain you understand criminal and civil procedure and terminology. Be especially careful to restate accurately any information obtained about arrests, investigations and judicial proceedings. Be cautious when editing.
Make sure the story does not convey the wrong information because of a hasty rewrite. Watch for headlines and cutlines that might be defamatory even though the text explains the story. Make sure news promos or teasers used to stir audience interest are not misleading or defamatory.
Do not use generic film footage or file photos when reporting on an activity that might be considered questionable. Just because someone else said it does not mean that a news organization cannot be sued for republishing it.
This includes letters to the editor. Check out any factual allegations contained in them as carefully as you would statements in a news story. Be sensitive about using words that connote dishonest behavior, immorality or other undesirable traits, whether in your published story or in comments in the margins of your notes.
Remember that a judge may order a news organization to produce reporters' notes, drafts and internal memoranda at a libel trial. If contacted by someone threatening a libel suit, be polite, but do not admit error or fault. Talk the case over with your editor, supervisor or attorney immediately, and follow procedures established by your news organization.
References:
Mass Media Law, 13/e, Don R. Pember, University of Washington, Libel: Proof of Fault - highered.mcgraw-ill.com/sites/0072492171/student_view0/chapter5/chapter_overview.html
First Amendment Handbook-www.rcfp.org/handbook/c01p07.html -
Friday, October 19, 2007
Sudden death of Lucky Dube shocks me
I'm in Accra, Ghana. I heard the shocking news about the death of Lucky Dube faintly last night on one of the local radio stations here. The announcer went like: "breaking news, the legendary Lucky Dube has been gunned down in South Africa." He did not say anything further but kept playing in tribute the Star's music. I kept waiting for further information. The news about his death was unbelievable. I kept asking myself, why should such a fine man - the world's most peaceful musician be killed like a pauper? The announcer kept announcing again and again that he "has been gunned down."
Still, I did not believe until in the morning at 6:30 a.m. when I heard about his death on Network Africa, and individuals were interviewed on what the death of Lucky Dube meant to them. As I drove in my car to work, tears screamed my eyes when the late Lucky Dube was heard in an earlier recorded interview played on the morning's show on how he got the name Lucky Dube. In the interview he said he came from a succession of siblings who did not survive. So his parents did not name him after six months for fear they would loose him also in death. But when he did not die, his parents named him Lucky - the lucky survival of three deceased siblings.
Actually, what made me shed tears was the reality that he had to die afterwards - a tragically untimely death at age 43. Though his parents thought he would not die at infancy, thus, for him to be called Lucky, he died, however. What a misfortune! Death is an unbeatable enemy. Death has left its sting this time on Lucky Duble whom the world would not have opted for his death right now - not even in future time.
The world will leave to mourn the death of a purposeful singer, who brought consolation to the lives of millions of people - downtrodden, refugees and the poor and segregated. What a shame on his assassins!
The world must protest so that the culprits be found and prosecuted for crime against humanity. I say, humanity, because killing Lucky Dube is genocidal to humanity. It is death to all Lucky Dube's music fans. The assassins have brought fans a great lost - a deprivation from the words of wisdom, comfort and joy Lucky Dube's music brings to the listeners. It seems as if the world doesn't like good things and good people.
The notorious, or evil minded people continue to live and to disgrace humanity with wars, tribulations and many more felonious crime. Yet, many go scout free. What a shame! Why kill an innocent person out of recklessness? Stupid world. Stupid people. Stupid fools. Bring the perpetrators to justice! Let the South African government conduct an immediate investigation into the incident.
Lucky Dube, see you in paradise!
I'm in Accra, Ghana. I heard the shocking news about the death of Lucky Dube faintly last night on one of the local radio stations here. The announcer went like: "breaking news, the legendary Lucky Dube has been gunned down in South Africa." He did not say anything further but kept playing in tribute the Star's music. I kept waiting for further information. The news about his death was unbelievable. I kept asking myself, why should such a fine man - the world's most peaceful musician be killed like a pauper? The announcer kept announcing again and again that he "has been gunned down."
Still, I did not believe until in the morning at 6:30 a.m. when I heard about his death on Network Africa, and individuals were interviewed on what the death of Lucky Dube meant to them. As I drove in my car to work, tears screamed my eyes when the late Lucky Dube was heard in an earlier recorded interview played on the morning's show on how he got the name Lucky Dube. In the interview he said he came from a succession of siblings who did not survive. So his parents did not name him after six months for fear they would loose him also in death. But when he did not die, his parents named him Lucky - the lucky survival of three deceased siblings.
Actually, what made me shed tears was the reality that he had to die afterwards - a tragically untimely death at age 43. Though his parents thought he would not die at infancy, thus, for him to be called Lucky, he died, however. What a misfortune! Death is an unbeatable enemy. Death has left its sting this time on Lucky Duble whom the world would not have opted for his death right now - not even in future time.
The world will leave to mourn the death of a purposeful singer, who brought consolation to the lives of millions of people - downtrodden, refugees and the poor and segregated. What a shame on his assassins!
The world must protest so that the culprits be found and prosecuted for crime against humanity. I say, humanity, because killing Lucky Dube is genocidal to humanity. It is death to all Lucky Dube's music fans. The assassins have brought fans a great lost - a deprivation from the words of wisdom, comfort and joy Lucky Dube's music brings to the listeners. It seems as if the world doesn't like good things and good people.
The notorious, or evil minded people continue to live and to disgrace humanity with wars, tribulations and many more felonious crime. Yet, many go scout free. What a shame! Why kill an innocent person out of recklessness? Stupid world. Stupid people. Stupid fools. Bring the perpetrators to justice! Let the South African government conduct an immediate investigation into the incident.
Lucky Dube, see you in paradise!
Monday, October 15, 2007
Communique at the end of Web 20. Workshop
Memo
Date: 13th October, 2007
To: Principal, Mr. J. E. Donkoh, Vice – Principal,
Mr. David Newton
From: Head of Dept., Dr. Alfred Massaquoi-C,
Web 2.0 Workshop Participant
CC: The Director of Studies, the Registrar, the Programmes Director, the Dean of students, Lecturer, Lab. Lecturer Journalism 3/ BSc degree and the Director’s Secretary
Subject: Write-up on the Just ended Web 2.0 Workshop for Editors, Senior Journalists & Educators
The Web 2.0 Workshop’s theme: “Improving the Quality of Journalism using Web 2.0,” which was held at the Accra International Press Centre Wednesday 10th and Thursday 11th October 2007 brought together editors, journalists and educators from a cross-section of both the print and electronic media within the Accra Metropolis.
The organizers were the Ghana Journalists Association, the French Embassy accredited to
The twenty participants were camped into a cubicle Internet room. The split up against the wall failed to bath the room with air due to the room’s packed capacity forcing the trainer to leave the door ajar. Yet, despite the stuffy air, majority of the participants were excited and exhilarated to learn new words like Blogging, Wiki, Podcasting, Skype and Videoblogging.
A handful of participants walked in late also while the workshop was going on. This attitude of lateness disrupting gatherings is peculiar to a certain degree in
Participants trekked or drove to the nearby Kofi Annan International Centre for Excellence to catch up with Internet connectivity as the Press Centre’s connectivity was down for the two days of the workshop. The last day was rather frustrating as the Internet bandwidth connection at the Kofi Annan’s Centre was annoyingly slow.
BLOG
Nevertheless, the participants utilized the time to learn. They learned Blogging, for example. This tool helps one to own his or her blog (or web page) on the Internet with quite an ease. That is, one simply must log on to blogger.com site, create a user name and pass word and bingo!!! you’re in the right direction to writing, editing and publishing your work on the Internet.
WIKI
Wiki, also, is an effective tool for collaborative writing. Changes done on a wiki takes place in real-time and appear almost at once online. It allows users’ contributions to the draft itself. A wiki runs on the idea of “open editing” so it will not work for one who doesn’t want his or her script to be edited by all and sundry.
PODCASTING
One can use podcasting for the following: Radio broadcast, transmit information; communication with (internal or external) recipients; Listen to music, lectures, talk show and tutorials. Furthermore, podcasting can be used for interviewing, story telling, finding and giving directions, making commentaries, sportscasting and audio and visual tours.
However, the podcasting procedure is primarily two. One, the podcaster in creating the content; that is, the audio or video content, he records, edits, creates files, publishes and promotes the site page. And the second, the end user downloads the podcast or subscribes to an automatic feed.
VIDEOPODCASTING
Finally, Videopodcasting was learnt on the second day after the participants had their meals. It was only one meal a day in the afternoon by 12 noon. The meal was not that heavy as one would expect to eat at a seminar that lasted for the whole day without a coffee break. A number of participants complained hunger. They did not have time for breakfast since they had to rush out of bed early in the morning by 4 or 5 a.m. from as far as Kasoa and Adenta to commute to the Workshop centre.
In spite of their ordeal, they were happy to learn that videopodcasting uses an online technology called Atom or RSS enclosures to deliver video on demand over the Internet. This same multimedia technology is used for podcasting too. The audio-based podcast with video files, transfers and distributes video to an RSS feed or a non-linear TV channel, and consumers subscribe to it using their PC, TV, or mobile phone devices.
Certainly, the aim of the organizers of the Web 2.0 Workshop was to see that editors, senior reporters and educators put to practice in their newsrooms and classrooms the ICT Journalistic tools they learned to benefit society in the field of information, entertainment and education.
The Conclusion
Gracefully, the workshop ended with the awarding of certificates to the twenty participants. And in the afternoon of the last day, participants were teamed into four groups. Each had a chairman and a presenter. The groups discussed which tools would the PRESS use for election reporting? The following four scenarios were proposed: Political parties’ primaries. What issues to report before Election Day? Reporting results during Election Day? And issues to report after Election Day?
Hence, the Jayee representative was the best presenter, amongst others. His group chose him as the chairman and group’s presenter. Mr. Kwami Ahiaben 11 asked each group’s presenter to document their presentation to be sent to him via blogging or attachment e-mail.
Mr. Kwami Ahiabenu 11 was the best instructor, according to my judgment of the two other workshop’s instructors. In fact, I walked over to him at the end of the programme and congratulated him as an excellent teacher. He blushed and commented animatedly: “A nice compliment from an educator!”
Though the Workshop did not ‘envelop’ us with money, or better put, rewarded us with money, I believe, the knowledge gained, in addition to what I knew in ICT before the workshop, in time, will give me money. Not so?
The fuel in my car finished right before my premises. I arrived home at 11 p.m. One reason is because of the heavy traffic jam in the evening’s late rush hour; and another, is due to insufficient petrol in my car. I had to wait about four to five hours for the traffic congestion to die down for fear that I do not sleep in my car on the roadside should my petrol ran out. However, after the calm, I ran dead speed to arrive home in Kasoa from Circle. I was lucky the car broke-down at my door, as I mentioned I found out the next day. Bravo!!! to the Director for have provided me with P$T of 250 Ghana Cedis that defrayed my petrol expenses.
RECOMMENDATION
It is one thing to master new ideas; yet, it is another thing to implement such ideas with the availability of required resources: manpower (committed human resources) and materials or equipment. Thus, there is a need for ‘knowledge information’. What I mean is, if one is not informed, out of ignorance or lack of knowledge, he may not know what is required of him. This is the bedrock of the essence of my recommendation. It is as follows:
- The Institute can generate income from conducting short courses in using and training others to use the tools of ICT Journalism. Since the Institute is affiliated with the University Education of Winneba, a lecturer exchange programme can be feasible.
- A virtual and perpetual Internet connectivity cannot be overemphasized. There should be Internet connectivity in strategic offices of the Institute. Thus, the Institute will be able to manage, monitor and publish up-to-date web pages of its programmes and activities over the Internet like other accredited colleges and universities.
- An Internet Connectivity must be made available in the Journalism 3 class with several computers for its laboratory sessions. The computers and accessories can be used to publish campus newspapers (blogging), broadcast campus news (Podcasting), and produce and present television broadcast and symposium (Videoblogging) and collaborative writing and editing (Wiki).
- The recommended computers are either Pentium 3 or 4 desktop computers or laptops. A flat screen monitor can do. The Institute has already Internet connectivity. So, with the purchase of more hubs and RG 47 cables, target centres within the Institute can boast of an Internet connection as recommended.
- Finally, lecturers and students to be selected for said training should at least have an ICT, Journalism and Secretaryship background plus the willingness to learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)