The document discusses transparency in government ("government in the sunshine" law), reporter's privilege, and promises of confidentiality to sources. It notes that the "government in the sunshine" law of 1976 intended to open up government agencies to the public, but that meetings are now often just formalities with decisions made privately. It also examines whether reporters should be treated differently than the public regarding access to information, looking at relevant court cases. Reporters aim to represent citizens by gathering expertise in areas and relying on confidential sources, but courts have ruled they must disclose information in some cases. The document outlines standards for who qualifies as a journalist protected by shield laws and notes that promises of complete anonymity cannot be legally enforced.
The document discusses transparency in government ("government in the sunshine" law), reporter's privilege, and promises of confidentiality to sources. It notes that the "government in the sunshine" law of 1976 intended to open up government agencies to the public, but that meetings are now often just formalities with decisions made privately. It also examines whether reporters should be treated differently than the public regarding access to information, looking at relevant court cases. Reporters aim to represent citizens by gathering expertise in areas and relying on confidential sources, but courts have ruled they must disclose information in some cases. The document outlines standards for who qualifies as a journalist protected by shield laws and notes that promises of complete anonymity cannot be legally enforced.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The document discusses transparency in government ("government in the sunshine" law), reporter's privilege, and promises of confidentiality to sources. It notes that the "government in the sunshine" law of 1976 intended to open up government agencies to the public, but that meetings are now often just formalities with decisions made privately. It also examines whether reporters should be treated differently than the public regarding access to information, looking at relevant court cases. Reporters aim to represent citizens by gathering expertise in areas and relying on confidential sources, but courts have ruled they must disclose information in some cases. The document outlines standards for who qualifies as a journalist protected by shield laws and notes that promises of complete anonymity cannot be legally enforced.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
-govt is transparent – we can all watch govt in action -informal title of a law passed in 1976 -intent was to break open agencies that were generally closed to the public -calls for open meetings for an agency that has 2+ appointees from pres -for exec agencies, does not count Cong or courts -must issue a sunshine notice = an agenda -in practice: not being observed anymore, public meetings are like plays -commissioners are meeting informally to decide vote, not discussing at meeting -defeats whole point of govt in sunshine -can a political figure refuse to talk to a reporter? can an elected official refuse? -no b/c reporters have same rights as avg citizen -key: Sun was not frozen out entirely, just those two reporters; not a blanket ban, so OK -didn’t go to SC, so does not have federal standing -related to sunshine law -confidentiality -reporter’s privilege -should the press be treated differently than the public at large? -dealt w/ in All the President’s Men -idea that news media exist BTWN public and govt, play a representative role in getting info from govt should media have a privilege bc of that role? -no such thing in national law -shield laws -reporters represent citizens -reporters become experts about certain areas -term privilege – to encourage more communication, maybe not official comm. -confidential sources that would approach reporters to tell what’s going on -All the Pres Men: deep throat met w/ Woodward, Bernstein; vowed not to tell his name -would not have been able to report story w/out secret source -only 3-4 people knew who he was -notion: we need to give reporters a shield law to encourage confidential sources -Branzburg v. Hayes -Branzberg wrote about marijuana sales in Kentucky -issued a subpoena to give up all his sources/info -he refused -went to SC: yes, reporters must provide info for grand jury -grand jury: diff from regular jury -KEY: Branzberg test -reporters can withhold info unless govt can show all of following: 1) probable cause to believe that reporter has info that is clearly relevant to a specific violation of law 2) info sought cannot be obtained by alternative means less destructive of 1st Amend rights 3) there is a compelling and overriding interest in info: info can’t be tangential to case -lower courts have all basically accepted -shield law – provides some protection to reporters to, in turn, protect their confidential sources -36 states and DC have some sort of shield law -first one in 1896 -Md. law: prevents compelled disclosure of source or info -DC law: qualified shield law – cannot compel a reporter to talk unless -does this apply only to published material? -can you be called in to testify about info you have but didn’t publish? -notes, things on cutting room floor -What is a journalist? Who is a journalist? -Madden test (martin madden case in 1998) -Madden was an employee of wrestling channel -refused to reveal info -case decision: he’s an entertainer, not a journalist -can receive reporters privilege only if: 1) engaged in investigative reporting 2) you’re gathering news 3) you possessed the intent at the inception of the news gathering process to disseminate the news to the public -BUT case was before Internet -appears (but not officially stated in any courts yet) a blogger is a journalist if a blogger has done investigative work and intends to disseminate info -law applies in state where you create the blog -you cannot nor should you ever, promise to keep a source’s identity a secret -can try your best, but court can force you to talk -promissory estoppel - -Cohen v. Cowles Media (1991) -Cohen acted as anonymous source, asked papers not to reveal name -but papers did anyway -Cohen was fired next day -promissory estoppel – requires liability when a promise is broken, and the broken promise results in injury -does not have to be a written promise -cuts across all of law, not just media -must have injury -how to prove a promise was made? -all about context: depends on court, judge, details -SC: prom estop is generally applicable; media can be liable for breaking promises -key: can seek redress if you have been harmed -what does the plaintiff have to show? -defendant made a clear and definite promise -that was intended to protect person (induce plaintiff’s reliance on that promise) -plaintiff did rely on that promise to his or her detriment (harm exists) -promise should be enforced in the interest of justice