Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

June 11 2013

17:48

Privacy versus transparency: Connecticut bans access to many homicide records post-Newtown

Editor’s note: Our friends at Harvard’s Digital Media Law Project wrote this interesting post on the new, Newtown-inspired limits on public access to information about homicides in Connecticut. We thought it was worth amplifying, so we’re republishing it here.

digital-media-law-project-dmlp-cmlpAt a time when citizens increasingly call for government transparency, the Connecticut legislature recently passed a bill to withhold graphic information depicting homicides from the public in response to records from last December’s devastation at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Though secret discussions drafting this bill reportedly date back to at least early April, the bill did not become public knowledge until an email was leaked to the Hartford Courant on May 21. The initial draft of what became Senate Bill 1149 offered wide protection specifically for families of victims of the December 14 shootings, preventing disclosure of public photographs, videos, 911 audio recordings, death certificates, and more.

Since then, there has been a whirlwind of activity in Connecticut. After a Fox reporter brought to the attention of Newtown families a blog post by Michael Moore suggesting the gruesome photos should be released, parents of children lost in the terrible shooting banded together to write a petition to “keep Sandy Hook crime scene information private.” The petition, which received over 100,000 signatures in a matter of days, aimed to “urge the Connecticut legislature to pass a law that would keep sensitive information, including photos and audio, about this tragic day private and out of the hands of people who’d like to misuse it for political gain.”

As this petition was clearly concerned about exploitation by Moore and others, Moore later clarified his position, emphasizing that the photos should not be released without the parents’ permission. Rather, he spoke about the potential significance of these photos if used voluntarily to resolve the gun control debate, in the same manner that Emmet Till’s mother releasing a photo of her son killed by the KKK influenced the civil rights movement.

Like the petitioners, members of the Connecticut legislature responded with overwhelming support for SB 1149. Working into the early hours of June 4, the last day of the legislative session, the state Senate and House approved the bill 33-2 and 130-2, respectively. The bill as approved exempts photographs, film, video, digital or other images depicting a homicide victim from being part of the public record “to the extent that such record could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the victim or the victim’s surviving family members.” The bill particularly protects child victims, exempting from disclosure the names of victims and witnesses under 18 years old. It would also limit disclosure of audio records of emergency and other law enforcement calls as public records, such that portions describing the homicide victim’s condition would not have to be released, though this provision will be reevaluated by a 17-member task force by May 2014.

Though more limited in scope than the original draft with respect of the types of materials that may not be disclosed, this final bill addresses all homicides committed in the state, not only the massacre in Newtown. It was signed by Governor Dannel Malloy within twelve hours of the legislature’s vote and took effect immediately.

From the beginning, this topic has raised concerns with respect to Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act and government transparency. In addition to being drafted in secrecy, the bill was not subjected to the traditional public hearing process. All four representatives who voted against SB 1149 raised these democratic concerns, challenging the process and scope of this FOI exemption. This blogger agrees that in its rush to appropriately protect the grieving families of Newtown before the session ended, Connecticut’s legislature went too far in promoting privacy over public access to records, namely with respect to the broad extension of the bill to all homicides and limitations on releasing 911 calls.

Though influenced primarily by the plight of those in Newtown, SB 1149 makes no distinction based on the gravity or brutality of the homicide, or any other factor that may relate to the strength of the privacy interest. Instead, it restricts access to traditionally public records for all homicides in the state, reaching far beyond the massacre at Sandy Hook. As the Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane said with respect to photographs depicting injuries to victims and recordings of their distress, “it seems to me that the intrusion of the privacy of the individuals outweighs any public interest in seeing these.” Pressure to expand the bill as Kane desired came primarily from advocates of the legislature’s Black and Puerto Rican Caucus. They criticized the fairness of differentiating between the protection owed to Newtown families and that due the families of homicide victims in urban areas, where homicides occur more frequently.

This fairness and equality based argument raises valid concerns about how the legislature is drawing the line between protected and unprotected records: If limited to the shootings at Sandy Hook, then in the future, what level of severity would make visual records of a killing “worthy” of exemption from disclosure? But an all-inclusive exemption like the one Connecticut passed goes too far in restricting the public’s access to important public records. It restricts public access to information so long as a minimal privacy interest is established, regardless of the strength of the interest in disclosure. While restricting the release of photos of the young children who lost their lives this past December is based in a strong privacy interest that far outweighs the public or governmental interest, the same cannot be said for every homicide that has occurred or will occur in the state. The potential lasting consequences of this substantial exemption from the FOIA should not be overlooked or minimized in the face of today’s tragedy.

SB1149 is also problematic in that it extends to recordings of emergency calls. While there is some precedent for restricting access to gruesome photos and video after a tragedy, this is far more limited with respect to audio recordings. Recordings have been made available to the public after many of our nation’s tragic shootings, including the recordings from the first responders to Aurora, 911 calls and surveillance video footage from Columbine, as well as 911 calls from the Hartford Distributors and Trayvon Martin shootings. While a compromise was reached in permitting the general release of these recordings, the bill includes a provision that prevents disclosure of audio segments describing the victim’s condition. Although there is a stronger interest in limiting access to the full descriptions of the child victims at Sandy Hook, weighing in favor of nondisclosure in that limited circumstance, emergency response recordings should be released in their entirety in the majority of homicide cases.

This aspect of the law in particular may have grave consequences for the future of the state’s transparency. Records of emergency calls traditionally become public records and are used by the media and ordinary citizens alike to evaluate law enforcement and their response to emergencies. The condition of the victim is an essential element of evaluating law enforcement response. As the president of the Society of Professional Journalists, Sonny Albarado, noted, “If you hide away documents from the public, then the public has no way of knowing whether police…have done their jobs correctly.” In other words, these calls serve as an essential check on government. As a nation which strives for an informed and engaged citizenry, making otherwise public records unavailable is rarely a good thing and should be done with more public discussion and caution than recently afforded by Connecticut’s legislature.

Connecticut’s bill demonstrates a frightening trend away from access and transparency. Colleen Murphy, the executive director of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, has observed a gradual change in “toward more people asking questions about why should the public have access to information instead of why shouldn’t they.” It has never been easy to balance privacy rights with the freedom of information, and this is undoubtedly more difficult in today’s digital age where materials uploaded to the Internet exist forever. Still, our commitment to self-regulation, progress, and the First Amendment weighs in favor of disclosure. Exceptions should be limited to circumstances, like the Newtown shooting, where the privacy interest strongly outweighs the public’s interest in accessing information. As the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information wrote in a letter to Governor Malloy, “History has demonstrated repeatedly that governments must favor disclosure. Only an informed society can make informed judgments on issues of great moment.”

Kristin Bergman is an intern at the Digital Media Law Project and a rising 3L at William & Mary Law School. Republished from the Digital Media Law Project blog.

Photo of Connecticut state capitol by Jimmy Emerson used under a Creative Commons license.

July 18 2011

13:07

Wall Street Journal: politicians and competitors use the phone-hacking perhaps to injure press freedom

Here is a discussion which started after Wall Street Journal published its editorial yesterday. 

Wall Street Journal | Opinion :: WSJ - When News Corp. and CEO Rupert Murdoch secured enough shares to buy Dow Jones & Co. four years ago, these columns welcomed our new owner and promised to stand by the same standards and principles we always had. That promise is worth repeating now that politicians and our competitors are using the phone-hacking years ago at a British corner of News Corp. to assail the Journal, and perhaps injure press freedom in general. ...

Access the full editorial here: online.wsj.com

Only a moment later the response came in as tweets  ... 

Jay Rosen (via Twitter): "Deluded dishonest whining victimology delivered in the form of a Wall Street Journal editorial on the phone hacking crisis"

Jeff Jarvis (via Twitter): "Journalists at WSJ, those with self-respect left, should rise up in protest vs its Murdoch-mouthpiece editorial."

Sarah Ellison (via Twitter): "Tonite's WSJ Editorial is sad. I've always defended the Edit page, but now It's a PR arm"

Jay Rosen is is a notable media critic, a writer, and a professor of journalism at New York University. Jeff Jarvis is the author of What Would Google Do?, blogs about media and news at Buzzmachine.com. He is associate professor and director of the interactive journalism program and the new business models for news project at the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism. Sarah Ellison is contributing Editor at Vanity Fair, author of "War at the Wall Street Journal".

What do you think?

November 11 2010

16:31

Burma Elections Include Throttled Net, Blocked News Sites

Japanese journalist Toru Yamaji, the head of the Tokyo-based news agency APF, was arrested over the weekend in the eastern border town of Myawaddy, Burma, after reportedly entering from Thailand.

He was taken by helicopter to the Burmese capital, Naypyitaw, for questioning by military intelligence. Yamaji was attempting to report on the ongoing elections in Burma, despite the restrictions put in place by the military junta that rules the country they call Myanmar. Fortunately, Yamaji was released yesterday.

Along with arresting and restricting the access of journalists, Burma also used the election as an occasion to downgrade Internet speeds and stifle the online press. Here's a look at the crackdown that accompanied the recent, highly questionable, vote.

Visa Restrictions

On October 18, Burma's election commission decided not to grant press visas to foreign journalists, reinforcing the impression that the military government intended to isolate the country during the election. The commission's chairman, Thein Soe, said that Burma did not need any foreign journalists or observers because it already had a lot of experience in holding elections. This, despite the fact that the country last had elections 20 years ago.

Several European journalists had their requests for tourist visas rejected by the Burmese authorities.

4182935001_6f6b2218ee_m.jpg

"The Burmese diplomats have clearly learned to use Google and are rejecting applications by people who are identifiable as journalists," a French reporter whose visa was denied told Reporters Without Borders. Twenty-five Burmese journalists who work for foreign media and two Chinese correspondents were the only foreign media reporters allowed to cover the elections.

A report by Simon Roughneen at Irrawaddy, an independent newsmagazine and website that reports on Burma, quoted an official with China Radio International saying that "usually we cannot report on Myanmar," or on other "sensitive stories," unless specifically asked to do so.

The election commission also announced on October 18 that media would not be allowed into voting stations. The commission and the country's Press Scrutiny Board, which is run by a military officer, closely examines all articles about the election and the statements of the 37 registered political parties. As an example, Favorite News, a privately owned magazine, was recently suspended for two weeks for publishing a cartoon that referred to the elections (see picture at right).

Monitoring Journalists

The Burmese correspondents of foreign news media were also closely monitored by plain-clothes police and soldiers during the voting on November 7, and throughout the preceding election campaign. "According to testimonies from reporters on the ground, some of them have been followed and sometimes searched, while the police spend their time taking photos of them while covering a story," according to a recent report published by our organization, Reporters Without Borders.

Foreign journalists have for decades been finding it extremely difficult to obtain press visas for Burma and have been forced to travel under tourist visas. This heightens the danger for the Burmese who work as fixers or agree to interviews. Zarganar, the Burmese blogger, actor, comedian and political prisoner, was jailed after talking to the BBC in 2008.

Zarganar, who is nicknamed the "Burmese Chaplin," was arrested on June 4 after talking to the BBC World Service and other foreign news media about delays in the humanitarian relief organized by the military after Cyclone Nargis struck the country in May 2008. He also blogged about the activities of the country's Buddhist monks during the September 2007 protests.

Zarganar was sentenced to 35 years in jail during a closed door trial at Insein prison. An extra 14 years were added to his sentence less than a week later. His sentence was then reduced back to 35 years. He is not due to be freed until 2033.

Internet Issues

Burma is home to some of the world's most draconian media laws, and it ranked 174 out of 178 countries in the 2010 Press Freedom Index. We have also labeled Burma as an "Enemy of the Internet," a distinction it continues to deserve thanks to its actions during the elections. Out of the 2,150-plus political prisoners in Burma, around 15 are journalists, and the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists last year branded Burma the worst country in which to be a blogger.

It's therefore not surprising that Internet connections inside the country were noticeably reduced in preparation for voting. "I can no longer connect to my Gmail account using proxies," a Rangoon-based journalist said. "Accessing all the websites based abroad has become terribly slow."

According to Irrawaddy, Internet cafes in Rangoon were closed in advance of the elections. From a November 1 report on the website:

Burma's Ministry of Post and Telecommunications (MPT) has sealed off Internet access for Internet cafes and businesses, according to experts on Burma's Internet infrastructure.

Sources close to the ministry who asked to maintain anonymity have told The Irrawaddy that Internet access is normal at all government and military institutions serviced by MPT, but "access for businesses and Internet cafes" is shut down to control the flow of information in and out of the country.

On October 5, Reporters Without Borders reported the disruption of two news websites due to Internet-based attacks. The Democratic Voice of Burma and Irrawaddy magazine were temporarily knocked offline. Both provide independent coverage of current affairs in Burma. The attacks are believed to have originated from the Burmese government.

On Sunday, the authorities ordered the privately owned Eleven Media group not to update the special "Elections" sections of its website or Facebook pages.

As of today, 13 reporters and two Netizens are behind bars in Burma. The fear is that more could join them in the aftermath of these elections.

Photo of Bagan by druidabruxux via Flickr

Clothilde Le Coz has been working for Reporters Without Borders in Paris since 2007. She is now the Washington director for this organization, helping to promote press freedom and free speech around the world. In Paris, she was in charge of the Internet Freedom desk and worked especially on China, Iran, Egypt and Thailand. During the time she spent in Paris, she was also updating the "Handbook for Bloggers and Cyberdissidents," published in 2005. Her role is now to get the message out for readers and politicians to be aware of the constant threat journalists are submitted to in many countries.

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».

October 21 2010

18:26

2010 Press Freedom Index Shows Europe on Decline

Reporters Without Borders yesterday released its 2010 World Press Freedom Index. Thirteen of the EU's 27 members are in the top 20 in terms of press freedoms, but some of the other EU nations are very low. The European Union has had a reputation for valuing and respecting human rights, and new data suggests that reputation is at risk.

RSF top 10.jpg

"We must salute the engines of press freedom, with Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland at their head," said Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard. "We must also pay homage to the human rights activists, journalists and bloggers throughout the world who bravely defend the right to speak out."

Many Northern European nations, such as Finland, the Netherlands and Norway, have remained at the top of the ranking thanks to their strong protections for media institutions and journalists. But overall the freedom of expression model in Europe is weakening, and part of the reason is an ongoing effort to implement online content filtering, restrict file-sharing and other related measures.

Along with those developments, Ireland is still punishing blasphemy with a 25,000 Euro fine, the U.K. continues to keep outdated and worrying defamation laws on the books. Plus, Italy and France have seen their political leaders interfere with press activity. It seems that the legislative aspect is the most significant when it comes to Europe losing its world leader human rights status.

EU's Gallo Report

As I mentioned in my previous post for MediaShift, Reporters Without Borders is concerned that France might sacrifice online freedom for the sake of security by implementing a new Internet filtering system. The goal of the legislation is to limit access to pedophile and porn sites. Filtering is a widespread practice today in Europe, and can be very harmful to Internet users if badly implemented. It can also have a chilling effect on freedom of the press.

gallo-report.png

In late September, the European Union adopted the Gallo Report, which made several suggestions about how the EU can better defend intellectual property rights and combat piracy. For Reporters Without Borders, the measures outlined in the report represent a repressive approach that violates the right of Internet users in part because it ignores the fact that legal file-sharing exists and fosters online creativity.

"The Gallo Report is an illustration of the will of the entertainment industry to try to impose private copyright police," said Jérémie Zimmermann, founder of the advocacy group La Quadrature du Net. "Repressive schemes such as the 'three strikes' policies and other Internet access restrictions negate fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial, the freedom of communication or the right to privacy."

EU members have begun implementing the Gallo Report, in spite of court rulings that go against its recommendations. Earlier this month, Ireland's High Court in Ireland ruled against three major record labels who wanted to see a "three strikes" policy implemented against Internet users who possess or share illegally downloaded content.

"The High Court ruled that laws to identify and cut off Internet users illegally copying music files were not enforceable in Ireland," according to the Irish Times.

However, the biggest ISP in the country is still implementing a three strikes policy by sending warning letters to those identified as illegal file-sharers. So does France, but Mark Mulligan, an analyst with research firm Forrester, told the BBC it is unlikely to happen in the U.K.

European Decline

When it comes to Internet filtering, file sharing and related issues, Europe is home to varying policies and laws. That's why one of the problems with the Gallo Report is how vague it is. This leads to a situation wherein nations in Northern Europe can be at the forefront of press freedom and online rights while its neighbors rank much lower. The two issues are of course closely related in the Internet age.

Overall, press freedom in Europe is on the decline, and we are far from reaching a consensus on how free European citizens can be to use the Internet.

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».

September 28 2010

13:53

Red Cross launches journalism award to recognise Philippines conflict coverage

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has launched a journalism award in association with its Philippines’ branch to recognise humanitarian reporting in the country.

The 2011 prize will honour journalists who have written stories about the long-running conflict in the Philippines, according to reports.

Nominations will close on 12 March 2011 and a ceremony will take place on 8 May with winners receiving digital recorders and training opportunities.

In November last year, more than 30 journalists and media workers were murdered in the Philippines when there convoy was ambushed and attacked.

Full story on ABS-CBN News site at this link…Similar Posts:



September 08 2010

11:00

Japanese journalist tricked Afghan captors into letting him tweet

On Monday, Journalism.co.uk reported on the release of Kosuke Tsuneoka, a freelance Japanese journalist, who had been freed after being held captive by soldiers for five months in northern Afghanistan.

Kosuke Tsuneoka had been missing since 1 April, when a message posted to his Twitter account indicated he had travelled to a Taliban-controlled region of northern Afghanistan. According to the Associated Press, friends then received information that he had been kidnapped.

Tsuneoka’s Twitter account then lay unused until last Friday, when a post appeared in English saying “I am alive, but in jail”. He was reportedly released to the Japanese Embassy on Saturday.

But new details have emerged as to how Tsuneoka managed to send the tweets that led to his release. According to reports, the journalist managed to send the messages from one of his captor’s phones.

Says IDG Net via PC World:

The soldier had heard of the internet, but he didn’t know what it was. When Tsuneoka mentioned it to him, he was eager to see it, but the phone wasn’t signed up to receive the carrier’s GPRS data service for accessing the Internet.

“I called the customer care number and activated the phone,” he said. Soon after he had the captor’s phone configured for internet access (…) “But if you are going to do anything, you should use Twitter,” he said he told them. “They asked what that was. And I told them that if you write something on it, then you can reach many Japanese journalists. So they said, ‘try it’.”

Similar Posts:



September 07 2010

16:17

#iq2privacy: Privacy, the press, and Max Mosley560/470

Journalism.co.uk will be at tonight’s ‘Sex, bugs and videotape’ debate organised by Intelligence Squared. Given this week’s renewed focus on phone hacking at the News of the World and debates on the privacy of footballers and public interest, tonight’s proceedings are pretty timely.

Proposing the motion that the private lives of public figures deserve more protection from the press will be Rachel Atkins, a partner at Schillings law firm; and Max Mosley, no stranger to the News of the World and secret videotaping himself.

Speaking against the motion are Tom Bower, journalist and author of books on Robert Maxwell and Richard Desmond; and Ken MacDonald QC, defence lawyer and former director of public prosecutions.

You can follow tweets from the event with the hashtag #iq2privacy or in the liveblog below:

Sex, bugs and videotape – privacy and the media debateSimilar Posts:



September 02 2010

11:10

August 23 2010

11:37

August 18 2010

10:22

Mexican drug cartels silencing country’s reporters

Reporting on press freedom issues in China, Russia, South Africa, Sudan or elsewhere, we are accustomed to thinking of censorship as the work of the government and the judiciary. But according to a Los Angeles Times report, newspapers in Mexico are subject to an altogether different kind of restriction – “narco-censorship”.

It’s when reporters and editors, out of fear or caution, are forced to write what the traffickers want them to write, or to simply refrain from publishing the whole truth in a country where members of the press have been intimidated, kidnapped and killed.

Drug traffickers are reportedly co-opting the country’s journalists, who fear for their life following the murder or disappearance of more than 30 reporters since a drug-war was declared on the cartels by President Felipe Calderon in December 2006.

From the border states of Tamaulipas and Chihuahua and into the central and southern states of Durango and Guerrero, reporters say they are acutely aware that traffickers do not want the local news to “heat the plaza” — to draw attention to their drug production and smuggling and efforts to subjugate the population. Such attention would invite the government to send troops and curtail their business.

And so the journalists pull their punches.

Full report at this link…Similar Posts:



August 10 2010

12:04

WSJ: Human rights groups join criticism of WikiLeaks

A coalition of human rights groups including Amnesty International have reportedly put pressure on WikiLeaks to “do a better job” of redacting the names of sources from military documents it has published, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

Amnesty International, Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, Open Society Institute, Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and the Kabul office of International Crisis Group are all alleged to have emailed the whistleblowing website with their concerns over the safety of Afghan informers.

According to the report, Wikileaks director Julian Assange asked Amnesty if it would assist redacting the names of Afghan civilians, and threatened to issue a press release highlighting a refusal to do so.

The exchange follows reports last week that the Pentagon demanded WikiLeaks remove all the documents from public access online and desist from publishing any more material.

See the Wall Street Journal report here…Similar Posts:



August 09 2010

14:18

August 06 2010

23:39

4 Minute Roundup: Politicians Don't Want Wikileaks Protected

news21 small.jpg

4MR is sponsored by Carnegie-Knight News21, an alliance of 12 journalism schools in which top students tell complex stories in inventive ways. See tips for spurring innovation and digital learning at Learn.News21.com.

In this week's 4MR podcast I look at the recent move by U.S. senators to amend a Federal journalist shield bill to exclude Wikileaks. Many lawmakers are angry at the whistle-blower site for sharing thousands of classified documents about the Afghan war. But what does this mean for a possible shield law, which already passed the House and a Senate committee? I talked with MediaShift legal analyst Rob Arcamona about the move by senators and whether the U.S. could really hold Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange accountable.

Check it out:

4mrbareaudio8610.mp3

>>> Subscribe to 4MR <<<

>>> Subscribe to 4MR via iTunes <<<

Listen to my entire interview with Rob Arcamona:

arcamonaleaks full.mp3

Background music is "What the World Needs" by the The Ukelele Hipster Kings via PodSafe Music Network.

Here are some links to related sites and stories mentioned in the podcast:

After Afghan War Leaks, Revisions in a Shield Bill at NY Times

Wikileaks editor interrogated by US border police at the Independent

WikiLeaks and a journalism shield law at the L.A. Times

Schumer, Feinstein Support Prosecution of WikiLeaks at NRO's The Corner

Latest Attempt To Create Federal Journalism Shield Law May Carve Wikileaks Out Of The Protections at TechDirt

Schumer Aims to Exclude Wikileaks From Media Shield Bill at FoxNews.com

Senate Tweaking Shield Bill In Wake of Wikileaks at Broadcasting & Cable

Also, be sure to vote in our poll about what you think about Wikleaks:




What do you think about Wikileaksonline surveys

Mark Glaser is executive editor of MediaShift and Idea Lab. He also writes the bi-weekly OPA Intelligence Report email newsletter for the Online Publishers Association. He lives in San Francisco with his son Julian. You can follow him on Twitter @mediatwit.

news21 small.jpg

4MR is sponsored by Carnegie-Knight News21, an alliance of 12 journalism schools in which top students tell complex stories in inventive ways. See tips for spurring innovation and digital learning at Learn.News21.com.

This is a summary. Visit our site for the full post ».

August 04 2010

10:18

Globe and Mail: Chinese media shows increasing independence

The Globe and Mail looks at increasing independence amongst Chinese media organisations. Writes Mark MacKinnon:

For years, there hasn’t been much nice said about Chinese journalists. Most were seen as either government mouthpieces or bribe-taking corporate shills. But the reputation of China’s news media is on the rise lately after a series of incidents in which reporters refused to back down in the face of intimidation, sticking to their stories even if it meant getting beaten or jailed.

Full story on Globe and Mail at this link…Similar Posts:



August 03 2010

09:14

NMA: Reactions to Italy’s ‘blog-killing’ new bill

Reputation Online’s Vikki Chowney rounds up the reaction to a so-called “blog-killing” clause in Italy’s new Wiretapping Bill.

As Journalism.co.uk reported last week, the revised bill will allow the publication of transcripts “relevant to an investigation”, but campaigners remain concerned by a clause in the new version which, according to European Digital Rights, requires anyone “responsible for information websites” to publish corrections within 48 hours of a complaint of inaccuracy being made, or else face fines of up to 25,000 euros.

There’s a huge amount of convergence within the reputation industry at the moment. the New York Times, FT and Guardian have all run lengthy features in the past two weeks on the issue of “managing your brand” as an individual. Just last week we saw a Facebook user sued for posting defamatory comments on a friend’s profile.

We’re yet to see a UK brand put a law like the one proposed in Italy into action, but as the courts start to impose stricter rules and the idea of managing personal reputation becomes more mainstream, these types of regulations will become more commonplace.

Full post on New Media Age at this link…Similar Posts:



July 27 2010

13:21

Ninth murdered journalist makes Honduras the most dangerous place for press

John Perry has an insightful post up on the LRB blog looking at the dangers for members of the press in Honduras following last year’s military coup. Members of Congress in the US have expressed “continuing concern regarding the grievous violations of human rights and the democratic order which commenced with the coup and continue to this day”. Nine journalists have been killed in the country so far this year.

On the night of 14 June, Luis Arturo Mondragón was sitting with his son on the pavement outside his house in the city of El Paraíso in western Honduras. He had often criticised local politicians on his weekly radio programme, the latest edition of which had just been broadcast. He had received several death threats, but disregarded them. At 10 p.m. a car drew up and the driver fired four bullets, killing him instantly. Mondragón was the ninth journalist to be murdered so far this year. Honduras is now officially the most dangerous country in the world in which to work for the press.

Full post at this link…Similar Posts:



July 06 2010

09:48

Press freedom group surveys journalists’ treatment by G20 police

Journalists who felt their freedom of expression was “compromised” by police at the recent Toronto G20 summit have been asked to share their experiences.

A survey is being carried out by Canadian Journalists for Free Expression in order to compile a public report.

This follows reports that four journalists have filed complaints to the police about their treatment.

The survey asks a series of questions, covering what the individual was doing at the summit, interactions with security officials and treatment by police.

The full post here…Similar Posts:



July 02 2010

10:19

Bangladesh media concerned over law to prevent yellow journalism

Bangladesh media have raised concerns over Information Minister Abdul Kalam Azad’s announcement that the government plans to introduce new law to target “yellow journalism”.

Azad is reported to have said “newspapers and television and radio channels that are making false and misleading news to tarnish the image of ministers, lawmakers, the government and the country are in fact doing yellow journalism”.

In an editorial post on Dhaka’s Daily Star website, the author writes that the proposals, such as editors having to hold 15 years experience in journalism, will be “no guarantee that bad journalism will not be there.”

We are convinced that a new law for newspapers is a bad idea. It is fraught with danger and it threatens to put unfettered press freedom in jeopardy. We ask the government to jettison the entire idea in the larger interest of press freedom and by extension intellectual freedom in Bangladesh. We suggest that it utilize the existing mechanisms to ensure objective journalism in the country, especially the Press Council.

Read the full post here…Similar Posts:



June 29 2010

13:58

Police remove teenage photographer from parade, citing terrorism act

Jules Mattsson, a 16-year-old photographer, challenged police officers attempting to restrict his photographing of an Armed Forced Parade in Romford on Saturday. As the recording posted to YouTube demonstrates, Mattsson was unrelenting in asserting his rights to the policeman, who eventually resorted to telling him he was a “threat under the terrorism act” and confiscating his camera. Mattsson can then be heard accusing the officer of pushing him down a flight of stairs.

Mattsson writes about the incident on his blog:

Especially poignant this incident took place the day after photojournalist Marc Vallee and videographer Jason Parkinson won their case against the met for an incident outside the Greek Embassy where Marc had his camera grabbed and Jason had his lens covered by an armed police officer. Many have hailed this ruling as ‘a victory for press freedom’, and I would be inclined to agree. However, until the met’s guidance on photography and a clearer understanding of the law filters down to the streets, we will continue to see incidents like this.

Read more on the Marc Vallee/Jason Parkinson case on Journalism.co.uk.


Source: Boing BoingSimilar Posts:



June 17 2010

09:51

Video: Evidence of more media restrictions on BP oil spill beaches

Interesting footage from Louisiana TV station WDSU-TV showing its reporter arguing the toss with BP security guards attempting to stop him from interviewing clean-up workers on a local beach affected by the oil spill.

The station’s reporter is particularly interested in testing out a recent memo to the media from BP’s chief operating office Doug Suttles, that says “BP has not and will not prevent anyone working in the clean-up operation from sharing his or her own experiences or opinions.”

Last month reports suggested that journalists from CBS, Mother Jones and the Times Picayune had been denied access to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Via News Videographer…

Similar Posts:



Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl