Open Records and Meetings (FOIA)

A standard duty for broadcast journalists is to cover meetings at the city council, school board, county commission, or any other local, state, or federal governmental agency. All states, plus the federal government, have enacted open records laws that guarantee access to government documents. These laws are known as “freedom of information” laws and they apply to both government meetings as well as to government files.

FAST FACT: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects student grades and disciplinary records from being shared with the media.

Not all meetings and government records are open to reporters. There are usually exemptions for law enforcement files, issues that would jeopardize national security interests, attorney–client communications between the government agency and its legal counsel, and human resources issues. For example, if the city council is about to terminate the police chief, that’s a personnel issue that is protected from journalists. Typically, such matters are dealt with at the end of a scheduled meeting where the council members will adjourn into a “closed session” or “executive session”. They will announce this in an open meeting, retreat into their chambers to discuss the sensitive issues in the closed session, then return to the open meeting.

If a reporter feels nonexempt information is being withheld by a government agency, the newsroom can readily file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Chapter 4 of this textbook, Collecting Information from Real and Virtual Documents, details the steps to do this. Briefly, an FOIA request allows a reporter to request documents from a specific government agency if the reporter feels she should have access to the information.

Access to Courts

The issue of whether to allow camera coverage of trials has been a continuing debate. TV news representatives generally argue that cameras should be allowed in courtrooms. Those opposed to the idea argue that the cameras compromise the rights and privacy of everyone involved in a trial and could have an impact on the outcome of the trial itself. Even in states where cameras are allowed to record the proceedings, the cameras are operated on a pool basis to minimize the intrusion. The jury is not shown.

There also are a variety of restrictions in most of the states where cameras are allowed. In some states, the judge decides. In others, everyone involved in the case must agree to allow the cameras. In still other states, the decision depends on the nature of the case. And in some states, cameras are permitted only in certain courts. Of course, if a news director files suit arguing that a judge must allow cameras into a courtroom, the case could theoretically end up in the U.S. Supreme Court, which does not allow cameras. Sound confusing? It is.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of allowing cameras in court? The most obvious reason for cameras, in the opinion of most of the media, is the “public’s right to know,” which is guaranteed by the interpretation of freedom of the press under the First Amendment. Others argue that camera coverage would educate the American people on how the jurisprudence system works. The most important argument against allowing cameras in the courtroom is that the coverage may impact the trial itself and the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Even the rules of using electronic media within courtrooms vary by jurisdiction. A reporter may give up the video camera willingly at the door under the mistaken belief that tweeting updates from inside the courtroom is allowed. Again, the judge sets the rules, not just for traditional video cameras, but also for phones and laptops to elim inate Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook posts.

FIGURE 1.1 ftwitty/iStockphoto.com

DEFINING TERM: The First Amendment—Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Newsgathering (Access to Places)

The RCFP delineates a reporter’s access to a newsworthy event by the type of property that the story happens on. For example, if a story happens in someone’s house (private property) and the news team has received permission from the homeowner to be there, there are no problems since the owner controls the access. If a story occurs at a city park (public property), the news team is restricted to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations. Unless the journalist becomes a nuisance or is perceived to be harassing people at the public event, there is a great deal of leeway.

Some areas require special approval, such as courtrooms or crime scenes, because of the inherent legalities in those venues; reporters who defy lawful orders at these places may be charged with criminal trespass or disorderly conduct. Individual school districts can limit access to school property to minimize distractions to the students. Polling places during election periods tend to be off-limits. Also, reporters do not have a greater right of access to prisoners than anyone else.

If you are denied access to a location where a news event is happening, you should first determine whether it is private or public property. It is vital to find out who denied your access and the reasons why you are being kept away.

Sources and Subpoenas (Reporter’s Privilege)

Protecting sources is crucial for reporters, especially when the story carries political, social, or economic impact. To make sure a source can remain confidential, 40 states have passed shield laws. These laws protect a reporter from being forced to disclose whom he interviewed to obtain information. These rights also cover digital journalists who cover the news via social media.

Shield laws are not absolute. For example, if a reporter is an eyewitness to a crime, the interest in catching the criminal outweighs confidentiality. This means the right to protect the source is qualified, meaning that it is balanced against other interests.

Let’s say you air a story about corruption happening at the local county commission. If you use a confidential source and will not reveal it to authorities, the local marshal may serve you with a subpoena. This document does not mean you will be taken immediately into custody. Instead, it is a notice that you must appear at a deposition or other court proceeding to answer some questions. If you ever receive a subpoena, it is critical that you take the following steps immediately:

■ Do not ignore the subpoena. Failure to appear can result in a fine, imprisonment, or both.

■ Alert your news director and the station’s lawyer immediately. You should never respond to a subpoena without consulting for legal advice first. If you are working independently, contact the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press at rcfp.org.

■ Never destroy tapes, notes, emails, or files related to the case after you have received a subpoena.

■ Work with your legal counsel to develop a strategy for handling the subpoena.

If you do not comply with a subpoena, the court can hold you in either civil or criminal contempt. Either of these is serious enough to warrant a fine and/or imprisonment. Shield laws in some states provide that reporters cannot be held in contempt for refusing to testify, but again, a story that generates a subpoena is serious enough to warrant a meeting with the station’s legal counsel.

Libel

There is always the threat of libel facing those journalists who through carelessness, ignorance, or malice make inaccurate statements in their reports that reflect on the character or reputation of an individual or group. Libel laws differ from state to state, but the First Amendment requires plaintiffs to prove fault before a news team can be held liable for a defamatory story. Essentially writers or reporters can be sued for libel if anything they falsely write or report does any of the following:

■ exposes an individual or group to public scorn, hatred, ridicule, or contempt

■ causes harm to someone in their occupation or profession

■ causes someone to be shunned or avoided.

FIGURE 1.2 P_Wei/iStockphoto.com

Libel is like slander, in that they are both forms of defamation. The difference is in the form of the publication; slander is spoken (when a defamatory remark is overheard by someone) while libel deals with the written publication of a defamatory remark. However, libel includes audio and video transmissions, since those remarks have been “published” by virtue of being on the air.

Reporters must also remember that it is not necessary to have actually used a person’s name to be sued for libel. If the audience knows to whom a reporter is referring, even without the name, the reporter could lose a libel case if the comments harm the person’s reputation. And just using the word “alleged” in a sentence does not guarantee protection from being sued either.

FAST FACT: In 1735, publisher John Peter Zenger was cleared of libel by using a bold defense; he showed that all the facts in his story were true.

Defenses Against Libel

Courts usually recognize only three defenses against libel: Truth, privilege, and fair comment.

The truth is the best defense, although publishing true statements that are malicious may land you before a judge.

Privilege covers areas such as legislative and judicial hearings and debates and documents that are in the public domain. If a reporter quotes a potentially libelous comment made by a senator during a debate, the reporter cannot be sued for libel.

Fair comment is also used as a defense against libel. Public officials, performers, sports figures, and others who attract public attention must expect to be criticized and scrutinized more than most people.

There are limits, however, to what reporters can say even about public figures. As a reporter, you should take steps to protect yourself from legal action as you gather the story’s elements. Each newsroom has guidelines issued by the legal department, but when confronted with a story that could lead to legal action, some of the basic steps include:

■ Keep your notes. When interviewing a subject, you should also quickly jot down the date and time of the interview on the same piece of paper. Don’t think of these as simple notes. If subpoenaed for a court action, they become evidence.

■ Keep your footage. While the footage that survived editing to go on air is important, the legal teams will review every second of footage, including what didn’t make it onto the newscast. This is another reason why you should not say anything actionable when you’re recording footage. If you say “This guy’s a big jerk” over your field footage, a lawyer will use that against you.

■ Try to contact all sides. If someone doesn’t want to talk to you, say so. But ignoring one side of the story is much worse than poor reporting. It can also result in a lawsuit.

■ Talk to your producer and news director. The station’s management doesn’t want to be surprised by legal action, so keep your superiors informed as the story unfolds. When a decision is made to alter or edit a story, you have every right to argue for your story. You do not have the right to expose your station to needless litigation over your news director’s orders.

Name—Michael Senzon

Job Title—Executive Producer, Digital Video

Employer and Website—CNBC, Englewood Cliffs, NJ; cnbc.com

Social Media Outlets I Use—Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Snapchat, Twitter, YouTube

Typical Daily Duties— I oversee video across all CNBC’s digital platforms.

Invasion of Privacy

A curious aspect of invasion of privacy cases is that it is often irrelevant if the facts in the story are true. In libel cases, if the facts are true, the reporter is in a good position legally. But in invasion of privacy situations, the most important elements are whether the reporter had consent to broadcast those facts, coupled with the newsworthiness of the story. Simply putting private facts of individuals on the air because you know them to be true is not a legally valid position.

There is no federal constitutional right to simply be left alone if you are a private person, yet courts generally recognize “a reasonable expectation of privacy” among U.S. citizens. Further, almost every state recognizes the right of privacy to some extent. Most invasion of privacy cases deal with either intrusion on seclusion (where you used cameras or microphones wrongfully against someone in the newsgathering process) or publication of private facts (like a person’s economic status, health, or sexual activity) that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate public interest. As you can see, whether the facts of the story are true is not applicable in either of these circumstances.

FAST FACT: The Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press reports 47% of subpoenas issued to TV stations deal with invasion of privacy actions.

Hidden Cameras and Microphones

Reporters sometimes use hidden cameras and microphones when they’re doing an investigative story in an effort to record incriminating material. They also use wireless microphones to eavesdrop on conversations, shoot with telephoto lenses to capture faraway video, and have the potential to use drones equipped with cameras.

First, let’s start with what is legal. If all the parties involved (the news crew and the interview subject) consent to being recorded, you can record the interview without legal repercussions. If your camera or audio recorder is in plain view in a face-to-face interview, it is presumed that you have consent of the interviewee. You are in the clear.

There also seem to be no laws against using a hidden camera to videotape something that is going on in public. This is based on the open fields doctrine, which shows that people should have no expectation of privacy if they are in public places. As an example, if you walk through a park, someone may videotape you, as you should not expect to remain private as you move through such a public area.

Reporters must know state and federal laws, however, if they plan to use hidden microphones. Federal law forbids their use unless one person involved in the conversation knows of the recording; this is called one-party-consent recording. But if a reporter places a hidden microphone in a hotel room to record a conversation between two or more people, that would be a violation of federal law, because the reporter isn’t a part of the conversation.

Let’s say the reporter is carrying a hidden microphone and is a part of the conversation. There is no federal violation (that’s the one-party consent), but twelve states do forbid the practice. A reporter should never resort to such tactics without first consulting his news director. News stations routinely have legal counsel on retainer to field such questions, so it should be standard policy to ask.

FAST FACT: The 1968 Federal Wiretap Law allows surreptitious recording of conversations when one party consents.

Other Invasion of Privacy Concerns

In addition to intrusion on seclusion and publication of private facts, there are several other instances that can warrant legal action under the umbrella of the right to privacy. Reporters can be sued for fraud or trespass for gathering the news inappropriately. Some states recognize a right of publicity (which protects celebrities so their likeness is not exploited) and misappropriation (which protects regular people from being exploited for commercial purposes).

A complaint similar to libel, called false light, involves the improper juxta-position of video and audio that creates a false impression of someone. This invasion of privacy issue has actually prompted more suits against TV news organizations than libel has, plus it is more difficult to defend.

Professor Karen Frankola described a case involving a reporter’s story about genital herpes. The reporter was having difficulty figuring out how to cover the story, so she relied on some walking-down-the-street file video. Frankola said that in the package used on the 6 o’clock news, none of the passersby was identifiable. The story was edited differently for the 11 o’clock news, however, and the audience saw a close-up of a young woman while the anchor was saying, “For the 21 million Americans who have herpes, it’s not a cure.” The woman in the close-up won damages from the TV station.

Frankola said that false light “may get past a journalist more easily because it’s not as obvious that false information is being given.” She noted that the reporter in the herpes story did not say “the woman has herpes” which would have been a red flag to the editor. But Frankola said “the combination of words and pictures implied that the woman had the disease.”

Government Censorship (Prior Restraints)

A prior restraint is an official government restriction of speech prior to publication. In the 1976 case of Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the U.S Supreme Court viewed prior restraint as “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights”. In fact, the Court has repeatedly ruled against prior restraints since 1931, presuming in multiple cases that such attempts to censor the media are unconstitutional.

In the area of prior restraints, the RCFP notes that “editorial decisions about publication of information the government deems sensitive are generally left solely to the discretion of news organizations.” Simply put, the government is usually going to leave a journalist alone to do their job unless the story compromises national security or impedes the right of a defendant to get a fair trial due to press coverage.

Content Regulation

From the moment a story is created, it enjoys legal copyright protection. For broadcast journalists, this means there is no need to file for copyright for every story at the end of the day. Copyright protection starts the moment the story starts to exist.

Ownership of the copyright depends on the relationship between the reporter (the employee) and the news station (the employer). If the reporter is an employee of the station, the copyright is held by the station, as the story is a work for hire. But if the reporter created the story as an independent contractor, then the reporter has the copyright.

Copyright protection means the work cannot be used without the original owner’s permission. This sounds straightforward until one considers that some work can be judged as being fair use. The four factors that courts use to determine fair use are the purpose and the character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. These conditions can be interpreted differently on a case-by-case basis, so if there is any question as to whether you may use something, the first step should be to contact the news director and the station’s legal office.

Boundaries

How far should reporters go to get a story? If reporters have a strong suspicion that someone in government is a crook, don’t they have the right to do whatever it takes to report the story to the public? Some journalists say they do. Other news people believe that if they bend the rules too much, they become suspect and may be viewed no differently from the people they are investigating. Each reporter must decide the ethical merits involved in certain investigative practices.

Some of the controversial information gathering techniques employed by investigative reporters include impersonation, misrepresentation, and infiltration. Should journalists use such techniques to get a story? Consider the following scenarios:

■ Is it right for a reporter to pretend to be a nurse so he can get inside a nursing home to investigate charges that residents are being mistreated?

■ Is it proper for a journalist to tell a college football coach that he wants to do a story about training when he’s really checking on reports of drug abuse and gambling?

■ Is it permissible for a reporter to pose as a pregnant woman thinking about having an abortion in order to find out what kind of material a right-to-life organization is providing at its information center?

■ Is it ethical for journalists to take jobs in a supermarket and then spy on the operations to try to show improper food handling?

All of these incidents actually occurred yet they represent only a few examples of the controversial methods used on a routine basis. Are they ethical?

The Fairness Doctrine

Fairness is both a legal and an ethical consideration, which poses a simple question: Do broadcast stations have a legal responsibility to be fair? Broadcast managers, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Congress, and numerous special interest groups have been fighting over that issue for decades.

In 1949 the FCC established the Fairness Doctrine, which said, in part, that broadcasters had an obligation to serve the public interest by “not refusing to broadcast opposing views where a demand is made of the station for broadcast time.” It also said that licensees have a duty “to encourage and implement the broadcast of all sides of controversial issues.”

Over the following years, the broadcast industry applied extreme pressure on the FCC to eliminate the doctrine, arguing that because newspapers are not forced to present all sides of an issue, broadcasters should not be required to do so either. According to supporters of the Fairness Doctrine, the major distinction between newspapers and broadcasters is that the government, in selecting only one licensee for a frequency, is, in effect, limiting access to the airwaves, which have traditionally been considered the property of the public.

FIGURE 1.3 webphotographeer/iStockphoto.com

FIGURE 1.4 stockphotomania/Shutterstock.com

The Fairness Doctrine was challenged on occasion but was upheld in the courts. In 1964 the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine. But over the intervening years, even the FCC itself questioned the Fairness Doctrine. In 1984 it acknowledged that the doctrine was not serving the public and was probably unconstitutional. It ceased trying to enforce the doctrine. But there has always been strong support in Congress for the doctrine and, in 1987, it passed a bill making the Fairness Doctrine law. But the bill was vetoed by President Reagan.

The Fairness Doctrine got a new look in Congress and elsewhere, in 1995, because of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. Presidents Obama and Clinton have both accused certain broadcasters (not by name) of spreading hate on the airwaves. They appeared to be speaking of Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and other commentators and talk-show hosts who criticize the government, often suggesting that strong action by the president’s office could increase antigovernment violence and spread hate that divides Americans.

Should these commentators go unchallenged? Should they be allowed to use the airwaves, which supposedly belong to all Americans, to discuss viewpoints the government may find distasteful? The broadcasters claim their First Amendment rights, and they have a legitimate point. But some people ask whether those who oppose such views have a right to use the airwaves to express their opinions as well.

Inflating the News

Reporters must attempt to keep a news story in perspective. Otherwise, it is easy to give the audience the wrong impression about what is actually happening. Demonstrations, riots, political rallies, or any type of story that involves a group of people can easily be misrepresented based on the type of camera angles used and the narration that the reporter writes for the story.

Let’s say a reporter arrives at a protest that is fairly calm. But as soon as the camera starts to roll, the protestors are suddenly in full swing. Did the presence of the camera have an effect on the demonstration? Did the shouting suddenly get louder? If the camera did have an effect on the crowd, which would not be unusual, the audience might get the wrong impression. In such a case, it might be appropriate for the reporter to make a statement like the following:

Actually, the turnout for the demonstration was smaller than was predicted . . . and our camera seemed to encourage some in the crowd to whip it up just a bit more than when we first arrived.

It is also important for the cameraperson to show accurately what was going on at the scene. If there were only a half-dozen demonstrators, the audience might get the wrong impression if the camera shot used was a close-up, when a wide shot would have revealed that the group was small.

One example of this occurred when then-presidential candidate Donald Trump appeared in southern Georgia for a political rally in February of 2016. More than 15,000 supporters arrived to hear Trump, while fewer than 40 protestors gathered at a designated counter-demonstration spot down the block. The news footage showed close-ups of the protestors’ signs and faces as they chanted anti-Trump slogans. However, the eventual wide shot revealed there weren’t that many angry voters after all. The news team absolutely should present the protestors’ point of view, but their actual numbers cannot be inflated.

FIGURE 1.5 Avigator Thailand/Shutterstock.com

Will the Real Reporter Please Stand Up?

There always has been a certain amount of glorification of anchors in broadcasting and there’s a growing tendency to give more credit to anchors and less to those who actually do the work. It’s common practice for producers and writers to write copy for anchors. Journalists know about this practice, and there’s no ethical issue involved, even though a portion of the audience probably thinks anchors write their own copy.

Part of the problem, of course, is that some stations are cutting back on their reporting staffs and are compensating for the loss by having writers and producers handle some of the work reporters once did without leaving the newsroom. The problem becomes more troublesome when interns find themselves working in the newsroom for a summer appointment, as they often do not have the training or skillset desired to refine copy for a newscast.

FIGURE 1.6 jozef_b/iStockphoto.com

Equally disturbing is the growth of video news releases, or VNRs. A VNR is like a printed press release, but it is shot and edited like a news package; think of it as a press release for television. These video pieces multiply whenever there is a hot-button issue up for debate, such as gun laws or LGBT rights. They also appear at an alarming rate just ahead of any election cycle when a candidate, party, or political action committee begins to feed newsrooms with their one-sided video messages.

To the uninformed viewer, a VNR will have the same production elements as an objective news story with field footage, interviews, narration, and a reporter. But these packages are created to tell just one side of a story about a new product or controversial issue. They are tempting to use, as they fill airtime on slow news days, are delivered to newsrooms digitally, and contain slick production values. Real journalists avoid VNRs as the one-sided press releases that they are.

Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct

In meeting its responsibility to the profession of electronic journalism, the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA) created the following Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. It was designed to identify important issues, to serve as a guide for its members, to facilitate self-scrutiny, and to shape future debate.

Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct

Preamble

Professional electronic journalists should operate as trustees of the public, seek the truth, report it fairly and with integrity and independence, and stand accountable for their actions.

Public Trust

Professional electronic journalists should recognize that their first obligation is to the public. Professional electronic journalists should:

■ Understand that any commitment other than service to the public undermines trust and credibility.

■ Recognize that service in the public interest creates an obligation to reflect the diversity of the community and guard against oversimplification of issues or events.

■ Provide a full range of information to enable the public to make enlightened decisions.

■ Fight to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in public.

.

FIGURE 1.7 Zeffss1/iStockphoto.com

Truth

Professional electronic journalists should pursue truth aggressively and present the news accurately, in context, and as completely as possible.

Professional electronic journalists should:

■ Continuously seek the truth.

■ Resist distortions that obscure the importance of events.

■ Clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided by outsiders.

Professional electronic journalists should not:

■ Report anything known to be false.

■ Manipulate images or sounds in any way that is misleading.

■ Plagiarize.

■ Present images or sounds that are reenacted without informing the public.

Fairness

Professional electronic journalists should present the news fairly and impartially, placing primary value on significance and relevance.

Professional electronic journalists should:

■ Treat all subjects of news coverage with respect and dignity, showing particular compassion to victims of crime or tragedy.

■ Exercise special care when children are involved in a story and give children greater privacy protection than adults.

■ Seek to understand the diversity of their community and inform the public without bias or stereotype.

■ Present a diversity of expressions, opinions, and ideas in context.

■ Present analytical reporting based on professional perspective, not personal bias.

■ Respect the right to a fair trial.

Integrity

Professional electronic journalists should present the news with integrity and decency, avoiding real or perceived conflicts of interest, and respect the dignity and intelligence of the audience as well as the subjects of news.

Professional electronic journalists should:

■ Identify sources whenever possible. Confidential sources should be used only when it is clearly in the public interest to gather or convey important information or when a person providing information might be harmed. Journalists should keep all commitments to protect a confidential source.

■ Clearly label opinion and commentary.

■ Guard against extended coverage of events or individuals that fails to significantly advance a story, place the event in context, or add to the public knowledge.

■ Refrain from contacting participants in violent situations while the situation is in progress.

■ Use technological tools with skill and thoughtfulness, avoiding techniques that skew facts, distort reality, or sensationalize events.

■ Use surreptitious newsgathering techniques, including hidden cameras or microphones, only if there is no other way to obtain stories of significant public importance and only if the technique is explained to the audience.

■ Disseminate the private transmissions of other news organizations only with permission.

Professional electronic journalists should not:

■ Pay news sources who have a vested interest in a story.

■ Accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.

■ Engage in activities that may compromise their integrity or independence.

Independence

Professional electronic journalists should defend the independence of all journalists from those seeking influence or control over news content.

Professional electronic journalists should:

■ Gather and report news without fear or favor, and vigorously resist undue influence from any outside forces, including advertisers, sources, story subjects, powerful individuals, and special interest groups.

■ Resist those who would seek to buy or politically influence news content or who would seek to intimidate those who gather and disseminate the news.

■ Determine news content solely through editorial judgment and not as the result of outside influence.

■ Resist any self-interest or peer pressure that might erode journalistic duty and service to the public.

■ Recognize that sponsorship of the news will not be used in any way to determine, restrict, or manipulate content.

■ Refuse to allow the interests of ownership or management to influence news judgment and content inappropriately.

■ Defend the rights of the free press for all journalists, recognizing that any professional or government licensing of journalists is a violation of that freedom.

Accountability

Professional electronic journalists should recognize that they are accountable for their actions to the public, the profession, and themselves.

Professional electronic journalists should:

■ Actively encourage adherence to these standards by all journalists and their employers.

■ Respond to public concerns. Investigate complaints and correct errors promptly and with as much prominence as the original report.

■ Explain journalistic processes to the public, especially when practices spark questions or controversy.

■ Recognize that professional electronic journalists are duty-bound to conduct themselves ethically.

■ Refrain from ordering or encouraging courses of action that would force employees to commit an unethical act.

■ Carefully listen to employees who raise ethical objections and create environments in which such objections and discussions are encouraged.

■ Seek support for and provide opportunities to train employees in ethical decision making.

Test Your Knowledge

  1. What is the open fields doctrine?

  2. Explain how a shield law protects reporters.

  3. What are the defenses against libel? Do they always work?

  4. Explain the term false light.

  5. What should you do if you receive a subpoena?

  6. What does FOIA stand for?

  7. What is a VNR?

  8. What types of restriction do some states have on cameras?

  9. What is the media argument for using cameras in courtrooms?

10. What was the Fairness Doctrine? How do you feel about the issue?