Centerpieces

Some eight years ago, I penned a handwritten letter to Gary Smith asking him how he does what he does.

I'm sure I rambled and sounded lame. I just wanted to know how he wrote these detailed, beautifully written stories that teach you something about yourself and make you understand we're all burdened with the same inescapable truths. How was he able to explain people in a way that made them look completely different than before?

I didn't expect a response. But he sent me a 10-page typed letter offering an explanation that only Gary Smith could. He told me, among other things, to live in a foreign country, embrace complexity and read. And something about not being held hostage by my keyboard.

Best letter I've ever received.

I heard it on the Howard Frankland.

That's when, as I drove that bridge on the way to work, the subprime mortgage mess made sense to me. That's when I heard from a man who borrowed $540,000 he couldn't pay back, the ex-bartender who bought and sold mortgages like that one, the young college grad drinking Cristal champagne bought with commissions from selling investments made up of such loans.

I didn't hear from these people in a typical news story. It was another podcast of "This American Life," the documentary radio show better known for David Sedaris than news analysis.

The episode, called "The Giant Pool of Money," explained the mortgage crisis with fascinating stories from people inside the mortgage industry and trenchant explanation of the big picture. Periodic musical interludes allowed everything to soak in.

 As the Bush administration pushed Congress to pass its $700 billion bailout of Wall Street last week, David Cay Johnston kicked off his own lobbying effort.

"Journalists, start your skepticism," he wrote in a message to Jim Romenesko. In an On The Media interview on Friday, he continued to urge journalists to consider whether there was, in fact, any crisis at all.

And then came Monday's failed bailout vote and a bad day on Wall Street. Again, Johnston criticized news coverage as fearmongering.

In light of so much news coverage and commentary that he contends sidestep the real questions, I asked Johnston how he would report on the current economic turmoil. His answers: Step back, ask questions, talk to people about what's going on their lives.

The following excerpt is taken from a speech Tim Russert delivered April 14 as the 25th anniversary Red Smith Lecture in Journalism at the University of Notre Dame. A video excerpt is included at the bottom of this page. Robert Schmuhl, the Notre Dame professor who oversees the lecture series, describes the speech as Russert's "last major statement about journalism." In an introduction to the published version (PDF), Schmuhl says Russert had hoped to revise the lecture for publication, but never got the chance. Russert died of a heart attack June 14, 2008.

By Tim Russert

How do you prepare for this presidential race as a journalist or as moderator of Meet the Press? It is essential that I do what I didn't do when I was in college. I had been taught that if I would read my lesson before class, show up at class on time or perhaps early, get a good seat, pay close attention, take copious notes, review my notes after class, the exam would be easy. I know they were right. I did not do it.

Beck Diefenbach/South Bend Tribune Tim Russert at Notre Dame in April 2008

But it is what I do now each and every day. Newspapers are central to what I do, another form of mainstream media. They are invaluable in the work product, because of the number of people gathering the news and the resources they generally have. I read TheNew York Times and the Washington Times. I read The New Republic and The National Review. I read The Nation and Human Events.

I read left, right, and center. Many of my friends say that I now have confused myself, and they might be right. But I think it is imperative for an independent journalist, someone who is trying to ascertain to the very best of his or her ability what is the truth of the candidates' positions. What is their consistency? What is their intellectual grasp and understanding of the issues confronting us?

We need to accept another premise, and that is neither party nor any ideology has a monopoly on good ideas or the truth. It is essential that we come to grips with that, whether the president is Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton or John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Our mission does not change.

		RELATED
		Full text (PDF) of Russert's speech

I spoke to David Brinkley, an icon on Sunday morning public affairs television for some two decades before I took over on "Meet the Press." I said, "David, how do you take everything you learn in the course of a week and distill it into one hour on a Sunday morning?" He said, "It's impossible. You have to understand the limits of your medium, but recognize that most interviews on the weekday morning shows are six or seven minutes and on the cable news shows perhaps five or six minutes. So you have an oasis when we think of an hour on Sunday morning. But always understand the limits."

You are introducing subjects to people or presenting candidates or governors or senators or policy makers in the hopes that people will become more interested and more curious and want to know more about them and their positions on the issues. And this is where the Internet has been a blessing, because we can now link on our own Web site on "Meet the Press" to all the various writings and position papers of the candidates that appear on"Meet the Press."

But Brinkley went on, "Recognize that there are limits and never forget it." I said, "Well, give me an example, David." He said, "All right, fine. If Moses came down from the mountain top with the Ten Commandments today, how would television news cover that?"

I said, "I don't know."

He said, "Moses came down from the mountain top today with the Ten Commandments. Here's Sam Donaldson with the three most important."

I understand the limits of our profession, but it does not in any way deter us from trying to do our level best to draw out each and every politician or policy maker so that you, the viewer and the voter, can make an intelligent decision.

The criticism of the mainstream media is heated and many times warranted, and will only increase in the future. But it should not in any way be suggested that therefore the mainstream media are irrelevant or should not exist. We are the equivalent of a referee, and the pamphleteers on the left and right are working us for a call. If they challenge our reports or challenge our analysis, they're hoping the next one goes their way.

I do not see any of these outlets or parts of the information spectrum as competitors. I believe they complement what we do. I am absolutely overjoyed that young people are watching Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart, programs that I've had an opportunity to go on.

If people who would not be watching "Meet the Press"or reading The New York Times are instead deciding they want to engage in a political dialogue or conversation at 11:00 or 11:30 at night, I think that's constructive. I also have a deep enough appreciation and understanding of life and demographics that a Colbert or Stewart viewer today will be a "Meet the Press" viewer with a baby on his or her lap 10 years from now.

Here are video excerpts from the speech, produced by the University of Notre Dame:

There is a widely held belief that the Internet is a legal no man's land, where people are free to publish what they wish without fear of censure or repercussions. While this may have been true back when the Internet was populated largely by techies swapping information on obscure Usenet groups, it is no longer true today. Perhaps it's a product of the maturing of the medium that lawyers are starting to take notice. Perhaps it's because some bloggers and Web site operators, albeit a small number, are making money from their online publishing activities. Whatever the reason, there has been a steady –- and dramatic –- increase in the number of lawsuits filed against online publishers. 

		RELATED
		NewsU Course: The Basics for Bloggers & Other Online Publishers This course addresses three important areas of media law that specifically relate to gathering information and publishing online: defamation, privacy and copyright. >Learn more or enroll now

In the last 10 years, we have seen the number of civil lawsuits filed against bloggers and other online publishers increase from 4 in 1997 to 89 in 2007 (See Figure 1). We aren't just talking about the CNN's and New York Times' of the world. At the Citizen Media Law Project, which I direct, we have cataloged more than 280 such lawsuits filed in 43 states and the District of Columbia, ranging from copyright infringement claims against celebrity-gossip bloggers to defamation claims against operators of hyper-local journalism sites.

While only a few of these lawsuits have resulted in liability, seven cases in our database resulted in verdicts or settlements in the six-figure range (See Figure 2). For example, the largest judgment to date involved a $11.3 million defamation verdict against a woman who criticized an organization she hired to help remove her son from a boarding school in Costa Rica, referring to the head of the organization as a "crook," "con artist" and "fraud." Scheff v. Bock (Sept. 19, 2006 Florida Circuit Court).

In fact, every time someone publishes anything online, whether it's a news article, blog post, podcast, video or even a user comment, they open themselves up to potential legal liability. This shouldn't come as a surprise because the Internet, after all, is available to anyone who wishes to connect to the network, and even the smallest blog or most esoteric discussion forum has the potential to reach hundreds of millions of people throughout the world.

Often the legal risks are small, but not always. Whether you are seasoned journalist or just someone who occasionally posts online, you will benefit from a basic understanding of media law. Let's start with a few of the more obvious risks.

First, if you publish information that harms the reputation of another person, group or organization, you may be liable for "defamation" or "false light." Defamation is the term for a legal claim involving injury to reputation caused by false statements of fact. False light, which is similar to defamation, generally involves untrue factual implications. The crux of both of these claims is falsity; statements of opinion and truthful statements and implications that harm another's reputation will not create liability, although the latter may open you up to other forms of liability if the information you publish is of a personal or highly private nature.

Click here for a larger view of this chart.

Second, if you publish private or personal information about someone without permission, you potentially expose yourself to legal liability even if your portrayal is factually accurate. For example, in most states you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term "private facts" refers to information about someone's personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. This would include such things as writing about a person's medical condition, sexual activities or financial troubles.

If you use someone else's name, likeness or other personal attributes without permission for an exploitative purpose you could also face liability for what is called "misappropriation" or violation of the "right of publicity." Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. But, some states also prohibit use of another person's identity for the user's own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial.

Third, if you allow reader comments, host guest bloggers on your site, operate an online forum, or if you repost information received from RSS feeds, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act will likely shield you from liability for problematic statements made by your users, guests and other third-parties. You will not lose this immunity even if you edit the content, whether for accuracy or civility, and you are entitled to immunity so long as your edits do not substantially alter the meaning of the original statements. Keep in mind that this important federal law will only protect you if a third-party –- not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction –- posts something on your blog or Web site. It will not shield you from liability for your own statements.

Finally, if you publish or use the creative work of others without permission, you may expose yourself to legal liability under copyright law. It is a widely held misconception that works on the Internet are not covered by copyright and thus can be used freely. This is not true. Copyright law applies to online material just as it does to offline material. Fortunately, an important legal doctrine called "fair use" may make it legally permissible for you to use a copyrighted work without permission for purposes such as commentary, criticism, parody, news reporting, and scholarship. Whether or not a use is lawful usually depends upon how different or "transformative" the use is from the original.  

To help you better understand these topics, Poynter's NewsU has just launched a course entitled, "Online Media Law: The Basics for Bloggers and Other Online Publishers." The course, which includes games and learning exercises, is designed to help bloggers and other online publishers understand their legal rights and responsibilities. The free course also provides resources to help online publishers improve the accuracy and quality of their reporting.

David Ardia is a fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society and the director of the Citizen Media Law Project, which provides legal assistance, training and resources for individuals and organizations involved in online and citizen media. Prior to coming to Harvard, he was assistant counsel at The Washington Post and before that he practiced law at Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C., where he handled a range of intellectual property and media litigation. 

Connie Schultz, a columnist for Cleveland's Plain Dealer, knows she's got it pretty good.

Most people with a blue-collar upbringing like hers aren't paid to express their opinions like she does, whether it's about a company that keeps the coat-check tips or the intersection of politics and family privacy (or lack thereof) that arose when Sarah Palin announced that her teenage daughter was pregnant.

"Most Americans have to punch a clock, have to answer to innumerous bosses all day," Schultz told Tom Huang, Poynter's Ethics and Diversity Fellow, in an interview this week. "They have jobs that they would not say are rewarding on a daily basis. It's what they do to make the rest of their lives possible."

So she writes for them.