Internet reporter under scrutiny in state with no shield law -- Hawaii

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18581

(Zimmerman story) 

A 2007 civil court case involving an Internet reporter, documented by the Associated Press on May 21, 2007, raised two rather difficult questions: 1. Should journalists have the right to keep information they obtain from courts, and 2. Does an Internet reporter have the right to the same protections as a traditional reporter? 

Attorney William McCorriston, in a lawsuit presented by landowner James Pflueger over the failure of the Kaloko Dam in Hawaii that resulted in a 20-foot wave and seven deaths, claimed Malia Zimmerman from Hawaiiireporter.com didn't.

“It seems to me that if a blogger is a journalist, everyone can produce a blog and never be subject to a subpoena,” the AP quoted McCorriston as saying.

Zimmerman, an editor and reporter for the Web site, said she does legitimate journalistic work and reports at higher standards than some run-of-the-mill blogger. 

“It's not the medium you publish in, it's what you do with that information,” Zimmerman said, according to the AP. 

The judge, Gary Chang, ordered Zimmerman to submit to questioning by oath under McCorriston, but allowed her to refuse to answer. The court would later decide whether or not it would force Zimmerman to comply. 

If I were Zimmerman, I believe I would comply with the court's wishes. Seven people died as a result of the failure of this bridge. Fault must be placed. Here, many “newspaper people today are ethically confused,” as Philip Meyer wrote in his essay, “The reporter's right to testify,” in Elliot D. Cohen's book, Philosophical Issues in Journalism. 

First, however, I'd want to make sure the desired information couldn't be accessed by any other reasonable means. Could the prosecution carry out the same investigation I did?

Also, I would have to assess the potential ramifications for my sources. Would I be seriously betraying their trust and compromising their well-being? 

One main argument against my compliance would be the “chilling effect,” as reporter Roy Greenslade noted as he covered an ongoing court case in the Oct. 6 edition of the London Evening Standard.

“If reporters reveal the provenance of sensitive information given to them on the grounds of confidentiality, sources will dry up,” he wrote. 

My decision would have to consider potential future consequences. 

Finally, I would assess what would be accomplished by the surrendering of my notes. Is my information essential to the solving of the case? Would the families involved receive justice? If not, I would probably refuse.

That aside, if my compliance would help little and the issue became simply a matter of privileging traditional reporters over Internet reporters, I would fiercely refuse. As long as I was adhering to the same standards of fact checking and rigor as a traditional journalist, I should be treated equally. 

Ultimately, I would probably comply. As Meyer wrote, 

“If the newspaper were truly strong, perhaps it could afford to be more routinely helpful.”

Sometimes, acting as a responsible, willing member of society should trump journalistic privileges. 

Introspection: Looking at papers' opinions of their nations gauges level of freedom

One of the best ways to analyze the freedom of a newspaper is to analyze its perception of the nation it supposedly serves. One hopes to see the entire spectrum in opinions pages. However, this isn't always the case, as three opinions articles from a leading Chinese paper depict when contrasted with opinions articles from the Washington Post.

China Daily writer Li Ling talked about nothing but the accomplishments of China in an Oct. 2, 2009 article entitled, “Great legacy of the first three decades,” written in celebration of the nation's 60th birthday. Sure, climbing literacy rates and increased school enrollment are great. But almost every sentence begins with, “The government,” crediting the nation's success to the pothat be. Ling places the government on a lofty pedestal. 

That same day, Steven Pearlstein offered a powerful critique of American society in analyzing Michael Moore's newest film, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” for the Post.

Pearlstein agrees that the economic system that has upheld the U.S. for over 230 years is crumbling. He questions not only government, but the very economic fabric of American society.

On Sept. 30, the Daily's Eric Nillson attempted to explain why the Chinese love their nation so much in his article entitled, “Never a better time to be Chinese.” Nillson even says the world should “venerate” the nation's birthday along with the Chinese.

The Post, on the other hand, keeps a critical eye on those in power. In an Oct. 4 article, columnist David Broder analyzes the president's performance so far and urges readers to wait see how Obama will handle the campaign for healthcare reform. 

“What are his chances of pulling it [his plan] off?” he wrote.

Broder places Obama under a microscope, not on a pedestal. Furthermore, he promotes dialogue, something Judith Andre advises in her essay, “'Censorship: Some Distinctions,” in Richard Cohen's book, Philosophical Issues in Journalism. 

“One person's discord is another's vitality,” she writes. 

Finally, the Daily's Orville Schell gives yet another idyllic picture of China today on Sept. 29. China's new government leadership has brought the nation to new heights, he says.

That may truly be Schell's opinion and it may even be true, but the bias of a paper is oftentimes revealed as much through what is absent as through what is present, Cohen notes. No articles clearly counter Schell in the archives.

Fear of government punishment is a ferocious driving force for media, as Andre says. With that rosy-red portrayal, Schell is safe.

On Sept. 29 in the Post, Richard Cohen (no typo) offers his own opinion on Barack Obama that's a little less favorable than the Chinese outlook on its own government. The president needs to stop campaigning and start working, he says. In America, the president will always be the most popular news beat, as Fred Smoller notes in his article in Cohen's book, “Network News Coverage of the Presidency: Implications for Democracy.”

The Daily's opinions pieces promote the government, while the Post keeps it in check.