|
Protecting Confidential Sources Now More Difficult
Journalists are living in a “fairy world” if they think the first amendment provides them protection to keep their sources confidential, says one of the leading legal media experts in the country in a recent address to Emory journalism students and faculty.
Lee Levine, a partner in a prestigious Washington D.C law firm and someone who has represented media clients for more than 25 years says “the world has turned on its head in the last five years” regarding judicial reviews of reporter privilege.
“Recent court rulings have put journalists in a really terrible position,” Levine says.
Levine provided students a history regarding reporter privilege, beginning with a Supreme Court ruling in 1972 (Branzburg v. Hayes), which he said essentially negated any press right to protect source confidentiality, but which was not interpreted that way. Levine says a confluence of several recent high profile events and a reinterpretation of the original case now has journalists “skating on thin ice” when arguing to protect their sources in the courts.
“Journalists need to be very cautious now about promising confidentiality to sources ….and make it is a narrow as possible,” he advised.
Levine knows first hand about some of these high profile events, including successfully representing Tim Russert in the outing case of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Levine told the audience it is time for Congress to pass a federal shield law that guarantees reporter privilege to protect sources for news stories. He says more than 30 states have passed similar laws and the federal shield law has now passed the U.S. House, but faces uncertain prospects in the U.S. Senate.
“In the past, the press was divided on such a federal shield law,” Levine says, “not wanting government that is supposed to be monitored by the press given protection by the government….but the last five years has forced journalists to rethink this position.”
A position communication law professor Dale Cohen brought home to his students to conclude the evening by advising them: “It is dangerous not to know what you can promise a source.” The evening offered them expert advice on how to do that in the changing media and legal landscape.
Politics and Reporting Science Accurately
Journalism Senior Lecturer Kris Wilson said journalists and weathercasters have become more accurate in covering the science of global warming but need to avoid politicizing the issue, using imprecise technology and focusing only on isolated weather events.
On February 21, 2007, Dr. Wilson delivered the first lecture in a series of faculty-student presentations and discussions as part of Emory Climate Change and Society Initiative. The Emory University Climate Change Working Group and the Office of the Provost are sponsoring the meetings.
In his lecture entitled “How Politics Pollute the Communication of Accurate Science,” Dr. Wilson reviewed the evolution of his own research on science journalism over the past two decades and how the subject is reported and discussed in today’s media milieu.
“Scientific certainty and consensus on the topic have remained remarkably constant over time,” he says, “but what is changing now is that the reporting is much better about accurately reflecting the weight of scientific evidence.”
Dr. Wilson says one of the obstacles to good reporting is the journalistic tenet of balance, which means too many reporters seek out a fringe skeptic to refute the science, which only creates “dueling scientists” and confuses the audience.
In the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released two weeks before his presentation, the world’s leading atmospheric scientists went even further in their conclusions acknowledging a stronger human cause in the documented warming. Even so, the topic remains highly charged among many in the media, especially TV weathercasters, who are the subjects of one of Wilson’s studies.
He says that even though many weathercasters are educated in science, they demonstrate fundamental misunderstandings about climate change, including topics that are directly related to their own specialty—meteorology. “Ultimately in this study the only factor correlated with weathercasters’ understanding of climate change science was their strongly held personal beliefs about the subject, often in contradiction to their own science training,” he says.
The variables expected to have an impact on TV weathercasters’ knowledge of climate change, such as earning one of the seals of approval from an accrediting organization, working in larger media markets, or rising to the position of chief meteorologist had no effect on accurate knowledge. Instead it was their attitudes and values about the topic that often distorted their understanding of climate change science.
“The bottom line is that many TV weathercasters are politicizing the subject unnecessarily and since they are often the only regular science source for most adults that can have a deleterious impact on effective communication and forming public policy.”
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) awards seals of approval to TV weathercasters who meet their standards with their on-air forecasts. The AMS has recently published a position statement that recognizes the “vast weight of current scientific understanding … and that humans have significantly contributed to this climate change.”
The climate expert at The Weather Channel in Atlanta, Dr. Heidi Cullen, recently posted a blog that suggested that TV weathercasters who have the AMS seal of approval and remain skeptics should become better educated on the topic and referenced the organization’s position statement.
The resulting backlash provided further evidence of the politicization of the topic and even attracted the attention of some conservatives in Congress and on talk radio. Many of the attacks to Dr. Cullen’s post were personal and political, framing the subject as another example of “liberal media,” while discrediting her and the AMS position based on personal beliefs, rather than on the science.
The Weather Channel’s own evolution on the topic of climate change provides an example of how stronger science can lead media coverage and shape public discourse. As recently as 2001 The Weather Channel had a policy of not mentioning the topic of global warming on-air because “it puts us in a very difficult political situation.”
But as the science has become more convincing, The Weather Channel moved not only from avoiding the topic on-air, but also by hiring Dr. Cullen and creating a new weekly half hour program, “The Climate Code” devoted to the topic. In just a few short years The Weather Channel moved from skeptic of climate change to visible educator on the topic seeing its role as a “place where sound science can be heard.”
In addition to eschewing ersatz balance in their climate change reporting Dr. Wilson says it’s important for reporters and weathercasters to use precise terminology in their coverage and avoid just focusing on isolated, local weather events as news pegs to either refute or confirm global climate change.
“It’s too convenient for some to use the cold and snowy February in New England as a spurious example that the planet’s not warming when in fact the record warmth of December and January kept the waters of the Great Lakes liquid longer and allowed for a very snowy February—that may indeed be indicative of the warming of the planet”
Journalism Program Staff Honored
Emory College has honored Jackie Bullard and Loretta Anderson for their years of service at Emory, 10 and 15 years respectively.
Anderson began her journey at Emory in 1990, but she joined the Journalism Program in 2005 when the Program expanded and needed a part-time secretary. “She made a new position very valuable to the Program,” said Program Director Sheila Tefft. “She has a calm, collected and very pleasant way of dealing with people. I can’t think of a better person for the position.”
Anderson is glad that the Program swayed her away from full retirement. “I like the atmosphere, the people that work here,” she said. “I feel comfortable here, and here I hope to remain until I decide to retire completely, which would probably be in the year 2050.”
Bullard joined the staff in 1997. She originally applied for another position at Emory, but three months later, she received a call from Loren Ghiglione to join the staff of the Journalism Program that he planned to start in August. Bullard does not regret her decision to take the job. “Over ten years I’ve met a lot of great people,” she said. “They’re like friends in the office, but out in the real world they’re really important people.”
As Program Associate, Bullard also enjoys interacting with students. Tefft says that Bullard plays a crucial role in connecting students to the Program. Journalism students have even dedicated a Facebook group to her called “Jackie Bullard is My Mom.”
Tefft cannot imagine the Program functioning without Bullard. “Jackie has really anchored this program since it restarted,” she said. “She’s central to everything going on here.”
Congratulations to both Jackie and Loretta! We couldn’t survive without either of them.
Journalism student receives Bobby Jones Scholarship
 Robbie Brown is one of four Emory seniors, chosen to receive the Robert T. Jones Jr. Scholarship Award for a year of study at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. St. Andrews, founded in 1411, is Emory's sister institution.
Brown, a history and journalism major from Atlanta, is editor-in-chief of The Emory Wheel. He also founded The Hub, which was named one of the nation's best student-run magazines by Newsweek in its first year. He has served as a resident assistant, interned with the Center for Ethics' servant leadership program, and reported for the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News, Newsweek and The Cape Times in Capetown, South Africa. He will intern with the Boston Globe this summer.
|
