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.