Privacy/Political Power Analysis

In the R. Kelly trial, the Chicago Sun-Times writer Jim DeRogatis cited his First and Fifth Amendment rights and refused testify and appear in front of the jury to reveal how he received a tape of what he claims is R. Kelly having sex with a minor. Judge Vincent Gaughan ruled that DeRogatis was not protected by a reporter’s privilege against compelled testimony.  However, Gaughan said that Derogatis is protected from self-incrimination by his Fifth Amendment right, so he could refrain from revealing his sources.

In his situation, I would not have revealed my sources to the jury, since I think the main issue in the case was finding proof that the people in the tape were in fact R. Kelly and a minor.  My sources would most likely not be able to provide the substantial proof, and the revelation would only put them in scrutiny and danger.  Philip Meyer’s essay “The Reporter’s Refusal to Testify” talks about how journalists refuse to testify to avoid the “chilling effect” or “slippery-slope.”  I agree that it is important to keep the confidentiality of my sources in order to continue gathering information to reveal the truth, but that would not be my only concern.  I want to keep my sources safe from danger and avoid self-incriminating or incriminating those who are innocent.  However, if I could save an innocent person from jail time because there were no other means to proving innocence, I speak to my sources about the situation and testify. I only want to cite my First Amendment rights wisely and purposefully at appropriate times to avoid coming off as a privileged or biased reporter.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) says that after the Branzburg v. Hayes case, there is no privilege that protects the reporter from testifying. However, there are shield laws that vary according to state that ask the government to demonstrate the following before subpoenaing a reporter: show that the reporter has information that can clearly reveal violation of law, that there are not other means of getting the information without violating First Amendment rights, and compelling interest in the information. I would refer to the shield laws to see what the reasons are for disclosing information and then decide if they are worth risking the confidentiality of my sources.

Though the “chilling effect” is a scary thought, many journalists have chosen to testify and newspapers have not run out of stories to report due to the lack of sources. “From the beginning of our country the press has operated without constitutional protection for press informants, and the press has flourished. The existing constitutional rules have not been a serious obstacle to either the development or retention of confidential news sources by the press,” according to firstamendmentcenter.org. I think the wisest thing for journalists to do is to avoid using anonymous sources for stories or to prove someone guilty, because it is not as credible and could make matters worse instead of better.

Freedom Study

The freedom granted by the First Amendment gives people a voice, but I do not believe it was necessarily intended for everyone to say everything that’s on their mind all the time. Freedom, as defined on dictionary.com, is “the power to determine action without restraint.” It is not the power to act without restraint, but the power to decide how to act without restraint.  The journalists in our country exercise their freedom to an extreme at times by disclosing too much information, but are journalists in other countries guilty of such extremes also? I analyzed the latimes.com and folha.uol.com.br, the online Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo, to see how reporters in each publication choose to exercise their freedom. 

In the Times’ October 5 article “Lula, Brazil's president, is focus of upcoming film,” the reporter talks about the film on Lula by quoting the film’s directors on their expectations for the film and speaks of president according to polls and surveys. Folha’s coverage on the swine flu vaccine that is released in the U.S., the October 5 article in “Government uses $2.1 billion to prevent swine flu” gives facts about the vaccine, history on the pandemic, and deaths from the virus but does not include any quotes or opinions from any sources. In the Oct 5 Times’ article “L.A. County expects H1N1 flu vaccine this week,” the reporter details the functions and receipients of the vaccine.  When reporting affairs in or of another country, both publications try to be respectful and cautious and avoid quoting irrelevant sources or giving opinions that may be misleading. 

 

W.A. Parent mentions in “Privacy, Morality, and Law” that sometimes the desire to report what is “legimate and important” to the public can make people feel like their privacy is invaded, so it is important for journalists to wisely use their judgment. When publishing homicide reports, the Folha is careful about disclosing information that may jeopardize any individual.  The Times is more concerned with disclosing information to the public about what they believe they “need to know.”

In the Times’ September 29 article “Murder charges in Chicago teen’s beating,” the reporter discloses names of those charged and details about the victim and what happened to him.  In the Folha’s article “Police withhold suspicious engineer for raping girlfriend’s daughter,” the reporter does not name the victim, girlfriend, or suspect. The reporter informs the public about the reasons for the arrest, but gives no further details on the incident. The article does not accuse or defame anyone, which avoids the “chilling effect” and “slippery slope” that Philip Meyer mentions in the essay “The Reporter’s refusal to testify.” 

The two publications attempt to exercise their powers carefully, though the reporters for  latimes.com appear more comfortable with disclosing more information if they find it necessary for the public.  Regardless of what part of the world they are in, the journalists seem to be aware that the freedom of speech and press comes also with the responsibility to use it well.