The Freedom of Information Act was created in 1966 and signed by Lyndon B. Johnson. It is a "law that gives you the right to access information on federal government. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government". A lot of people and companies would like to keep their documents hidden from view and will fight to keep them from the public eye. ExxonMobile is currently dealing with people trying to view their documents.
"ExxonMobile is fighting a subpoena seeking its internal documents on climate change, arguing that the order violates the company's constitutional rights". Claude Walker, a U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General, set this investigation in motion. He believes that ExxonMobile may have ill informed or mislead the public on climate change and climate science. The "subpoena accusses Exxon of defrauding the government and consumers, and 'misrepresenting its knowlege of the likelihood that its products and activities have contributed and are contributing to climate change'". ExxonMobile is saying that Walker trying to view their documents is something purely politically motivated and that his attempt is a violation of their rights.
The Freedom of Information Act is put in place so that the citizens of the U.S. can be informed, especially when it comes to things regarding their pwn safety. The fact that ExxonMobile is fighting to withhold information they have regarding climate change is a little concerning. This begs the question of how accurate is the information big companies and the government is telling us? We should be concerned, we should seek answers, we should be informed.
Articles Cited:
(http://www.foia.gov/)
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63)
College seems to be another world in its own. "For college students, a university creates a bubble-like environment we believe to be unique". However unique each university is, they share a lot of the same problems, one being the current state of college media. "College media outlets are in turmoil". They have lost much of their revenue and are falling behind in this new technological era. With the current college generation being quick to address problems, something is being done to bring college media back.
"College media innovators gathered for a national Future of Student Media Summit in Schoonover Center at Ohio University". This event was even funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, "the worlds premier funder of of journalism initiatives". The "aim of the first-of-its-kind event is simple - brainstorm practical solutions to revenue and audience engagement challenges for college media". The Post, who attended this convention, believes that them coming together with the college media community will "address collective challenges and better position [their] organizations for success".
Since cell phones are a "predominant news source for college students, college media is poised to lead the way in developing new ways to connect with [their] audience". Times are changing. Technology is seeming to rule our lives. Having students that have grown up with the advancement of technology and have first hand experience on how dependent the college aged generation is, it leaves reason to see promise in them finding new innovative ways to bring back popularity and revenue to college media outlets. In the future, we may see college media being done in ways never seen or done before.
Articles Cited:
(http://www.thepostathens.com/opinion/future-of-student-media-summit-aims-to-identify-and-fix/article_bd4e9712-fb67-11e5-9c45-036330423faa.html)
Non-Profit investigative journalism sites are at risk. " Journalism ethicist Edward Wasserman notably commented several years ago that asking for money every now and then to keep afloat isn't a 'real business model'". With the current financial state of the non-profit investigative journalism site, there was a panel put together to discuss how to keep these non-profit sites running and why it is important that they find a way to do so.
"Is philanthropy the answer to paying for non-profit investigative journalism"? This is a question that the panel was asking. "ProPublica's general manager, Richard Tofel, recently stated that 'philanthropy is how these non-profits are sustained'". ProPublica is also the first non-profit to win a Pulitzer Prize, giving their general manager much more credibility. The big discussion about non-profit journalism's ability to sustain themselves was "brought up at a workshop at the Reva and David Logan Investigative Reporting Symposium". There was a panel that included representatives from the Center for Investigative Reporting, Frontline, and the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, along with others. The panel discussed how to fund non-profit investigative journalism. "The oldest non-profit investigative news organization", the Center for Investigative Reporting, explained how the center is "charging for... content to help cover their expenses". Another non-profit that spoke within the panel was ProPublica. They described how they use a "combination of fundraising, sponsorship's, and other ways" to stay in business. Some organizations even give money to these non-profit groups, such as the Ford Foundation. The Ford Foundation is noted for giving "significant grants to journalism ventures" that have "big influence and impact". Non-profit investigative journalism is struggling, but they are finding ways to make it work.
Investigative journalism can be powerful, but for non-profits, keeping afloat is proving to be a struggle. Whether you have companies like the Ford Foundation to donate money or have multiple fundraisers and sponsorship's, money is tight in the non-profit community and something more needs to be done. While they are in the clear for now, it is possible that non-profit investigative journalism could be a thing of the past, and that would truly be a tragedy.
Articles Cited:
(http://www.imediaethics.org/panel-discusses-how-to-keep-nonprofit-investigative-journalism-sites-in-business/)
When a media finds a story that sells, it is common to see exploitation and over coverage concerning that topic. Exploitation can be used to manipulate consumers into viewing a story in a way that reflects what that particular media outlet desires. Megyn Kelly calls out the Liberal media and accuses them of excessive coverage on the Planned Parenthood shooting. Kelly is saying that the over coverage is evidence of a bias, most likely being political.
In December, "Megyn Kelly tore into liberal media, accusing some reporters of bias by comparing recent coverage of [the] shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic to the way in which journalists have handled other crimes". Although there has not been a definite motive detected by law enforcement, it has not stopped "some from suggesting this has everything to do with political rhetoric". It is possible that the Liberal media is exploiting this story to try and get their viewers on their political agenda by making a criminal out to be an extremist from the opposing party. "Kelly also accused many media outlets of barely paying attention to the undercover Planned Parenthood videos when they were released this past summer by anti-abortion groups..., saying that some reporters are now suddenly invoking these clips in the wake of [the Planned Parenthood] shooting". The fact that there was only a small amount of coverage on the videos when they were released and since the shooting there was a huge increase in the amount of airtime these videos are getting reflect that the Liberal media is grabbing to find things that will support that the shooter was a part of an anti-abortion group. Although, there is no evidence that this is to be held true.
The media often will have over coverage of a story that sells, but when the media begins exploiting a story to frame the minds of viewers it gets a little unethical. Until something is proven to be true, such as the shooter having a political motive, it should not be covered in such a way that viewers believe it to be the truth. Covering a story in such a way only proves that the media outlet is the one who has a political motive.
Articles Cited:
(http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/01/megyn-kelly-tears-into-liberal-media-over-coverage-of-planned-parenthood-shooting-is-this-not-evidence-of-bias/)
Copyright and fair use laws can be a bit of a blurred line in media today. Fair use "permits copying under limited circumstances," this can include content used for educational purposes and if no profit is being made. This can leave certain copyright lawsuits mildly open for interpretation. A company that is currently undergoing a copyright lawsuit is Google and Oracle.
Oracle "is asking Google the largest copyright verdict ever over the alleged software copyright infringement" at 9.3 billion dollars. Over 4 years ago "Google was accused of using the Java APIs without consent and that they were purportedly using a protected property in order to build its version of the market-leading mobile OS, Android". Google and Oracle first went to court in 2012 and the jury concluded that they were "unable to determine whether Google's use of Java was ensured by fair use". Google and Oracle are set to go on trial again on May 9 this year. Oracle is said to be asking for 9.3 billion in the upcoming trial, however Google "assessed damages are close to 100 million only." In fact, "the jury had found Google infringing only 37 APIs, which [is] a small fraction of the company's Android codebase". Copyright laws are coming into place and they state that "damages can only be claimed for profits that are inferable from the infringing code". This is a huge lawsuit and with the copyright and fair use laws in play, the outcome will be interesting to see.
Copyright violations can be a serious crime, this lawsuit is a prime example. The numbers the companies are throwing around start at 100 million and reach a staggering 9.3 billion. The copyright and fair use laws are in place to protect companies and people from the theft of their material for others gain, as well as protecting people who are using others content harmlessly. The moral of the story is that you should always double check that you either ask permission for content or give credit when its due, you also need to know your rights under copyright and fair use laws to prevent a nasty lawsuit similar to the one Google is facing.
Articles Cited:
(http://en.yibada.com/articles/112632/20160330/oracle-vs-google-demands-9-3-billion-copyright-lawsuit-against.htm)
Reporters are able to find great stories and obtain controversial information due to their ability to promise sources that what they say is going to remain anonymous. This promise is backed by shield laws that protects writers privilege and keeps them from being forced to testify about confidential sources. However, this law doesn't always fully protect reporters. They are still subjects of scrutiny from the public, law, and their company when they refuse to release information on their source, especially when their source reveals controversial information. This happened when reporter Claire O'Brien was fired after a reporters privilege fight.
Claire O'Brien "refused to reveal a confidential source and story notes from her jailhouse interview to Ford County Attorney". She was later fired from the Dodge City Daily for her practicing her rights as a reporter. She "told the press her lawyers from Gatehouse had hindered her from seeking outside counsel unless she agreed to testify". The Shield Law should protect her from this kind of manipulation, however you can clearly see this is not the case. She said that Gatehouse even "kept her in the dark about court dates," making it harder for her to keep up with her legal matters.
O'Brien was not forced by the court to reveal the confidential interview, however, the company she worked for tried to twist her arm into spilling the information by keeping her from seeking outside counsel and withholding her court dates from her. When she resisted releasing the information and exercised her reporters privilege, it resulted in her being fired from her job. Yes, the Shield Laws protected her from harassment by the courts hand, but what is going to protect her, and future reporters from the scrutiny and the ultimate demise of her career she faced with the company she worked for?
Articles Cited:
(http://www.imediaethics.org/dodge-city-reporter-fired-after-reporters-privilege-fight/)
The media lives for stories that grab attention and captivate the minds of the viewers. Resulting in fame and admiration for the source that found such a intriguing tale. Obtaining stories that do such things aren't easy to come by. The media may resort to stretching the truth to create a more noteworthy story. Some even succumb to fabricating enticing stories and claim it as truth for ones own gain. O'Reilly and his stories from El Salvador are a prime example of fabrication in action.
"O'Reilly has claimed repeatedly that he witnessed the execution of nuns while reporting in 1981 on the civil war in El Salvador, an apparent fabrication that is at odds with both history and what O'Reilly himself has said about arriving in the country after the event took place". O'Reilly continues to talk about his time in El Salvador as a CBS correspondent today. He has said multiple times that he actually saw the churchwomen being executed. In 2005 he said, "I've seen guys gun down nuns in El Salvador," and in 2012 he again discussed how "[he] was in El Salvador and [he] saw nuns get shot in the back of the head". However, if he was telling the truth of his whereabouts during the time of the civil war in El Salvador, it is not possible that he actually witnessed the murder of these nuns. In his book The No Spin Zone, "O'Reilly details a reporting assignment in which he arrived...shortly after it had been wiped out by the rebels and witnessed carnage that was obviously recent," but he never discusses him seeing anyone being killed, much less the nuns. "O'Reilly even admitted he had arrived in El Salvador right after the killings during an interview... in 2009". So why would he continue to change his story after admitting he was not present during the execution?
O'Reilly gained fame for covering the civil war in El Salvador. His fame and reputation started from a story he fabricated about witnessing the murder of nuns, something that captivated the minds of viewers during that time. What could be more credible and intriguing than an eyewitness account? However, he continues to switch his story from time to time and it is drawing attention. He "exaggerated his claims of being in a "combat situation" during the Falklands War". He could lose his credibility if the fabrication of his accounts are revealed on a wider scale. He could lose everything he has worked for. Would his white lie be worth it?
Articles Cited:
(http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/25/another-fabrication-oreilly-never-witnessed-the/202667)
The Freedom of Information Act was created in 1966 and signed by Lyndon B. Johnson. It is a "law that gives you the right to access information on federal government. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government". A lot of people and companies would like to keep their documents hidden from view and will fight to keep them from the public eye. ExxonMobile is currently dealing with people trying to view their documents. 
