Nick Tabbert @tabbertnick-blog - Tumblr Blog

Posts

Comments

For the sake of convenience, I thought I'd post where and when I posted for this class assignment.

1. emilyac31 - Dec 2 post

2. sjmcnate - Oct 13 post

3. Anthony-freepress - Dec 1 post

4. Martha-lueders - Nov 9 post

5. helfand3776 - Oct 21 post

Is Japan's National Security Council a Good Idea?

Japan began using a U.S.- style National Security Council (NSC) on Wednesday, a system designed to strengthen the leadership of the prime minister's office in steering foreign and defense policies, according to local media.

The launch of the organization is seen as one of the main pillars of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's drive to rework the country 's defense posture and strengthen the defense capabilities of the Self-Defense Forces, Kyodo News said.

It brings together the prime minister, chief Cabinet secretary, foreign, and defense ministers twice a month to discuss security issues. Shotaro Yachi, Abe's foreign policy adviser, is expected to serve as its head.

The head office consists of 60 officials mainly from the Foreign and Defense ministries, and will be set up within the Cabinet Secretariat next month. The report said it will gather information from ministries and agencies to avoid sectionalism.

I'm not sure how I feel about this decision. I think the idea to model the United States system is smart, but Japan needs to think about how it communicates its decisions with the media.

I give that obvious advice because while the United States is one of the most powerful nations in the world, public opinion of national security policy continues to come under fire. A poll released this week (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/3/obama-weak-foreign-policy-national-security-poll/) shows a majority of Americans think President Obama is too weak on foreign policy and national security issues. The poll says many "fear that U.S. global power and prestige are in decline."

The survey went on to say 70 percent of its respondents say the United States is less respected by other countries than in the past. Similar results reflect support during President George W. Bush's second term.

And most interestingly, the survey found that "for the first time in nearly 40 years, a majority of Americans say the United States plays a less important role as a world leader than it did a decade ago."

This is scary, but not surprising information. I've seen increased skepticism from the media and the public about how we handle international affairs, mainly the fighting in the Middle East.

So while Japan forming a National Security Council is probably a good thing, its leaders need to use caution as to how much policy it borrows from the United States.

Cool lesson on Defamation

I got a cool lesson on defamation this morning in another journalism class. Jim Barnum - vice president and general counsel of Hubbard Broadcasting - and Paul Hannah - partner of attorney firm Kelley and Hannah - stopped by to talk about the legal aspects of broadcast reporting, and what you need to do to avoid getting sued.

They explained defamation, but not nearly as in-depth as we did in class. Instead they focused more on examples in the television world (because my class is focused on it anyway). We discussed a few stories that almost made it to air, and one that did here in the Twin Cities involving a naturopathic doctor and her patient who nearly committed suicide (read article on verdict here - http://www.startribune.com/local/south/133411953.html). The common theme was the reporter or television station as a whole defamed a source in the story and acted negligently.

The lesson I took away was the need for proper communication between all role players within a media organization - since some of the problems resulting in defamation resulted from inaccurate facts or a lack of effort to determine what the facts of the story were. Reporters, editors, producers, attorneys, and others should work together to make sure every precaution is taken when publishing a story with controversial content.

As I prepare to enter the broadcast journalism field, hopefully as a reporter or multi-media journalist, I sometimes worry about not knowing all of the legal aspects of the business. The reporters who got themselves into trouble may have been caught up in the idea of capturing the emotions of a source or emphasizing an issue. But I've learned through not only 3776 and Barnum and Hannah that it is your job to make sure you cover all sides of a story, and reach out to others within the company if you have any doubts about the legality of a story. I've never been close to a situation where my source is portrayed in such a defamatory way, but then again I haven't done any investigative or serious issue stories. I think because of my education experiences, such as today with Barnum and Hannah, this Tumblr assignment, and my own stories, I should be in good shape to avoid getting sued..... I think.

Who knew This Doctor was so Popular for Copyright Law

I'm not familiar with the show Doctor Who, but apparently its a popular show for copyright infringement.

An article published this week talks of the latest lawsuit over the copyright of a character on the BBC show.

Link: http://www.geekosystem.com/doctor-who-tardis-copyright/

(Picture credited to BBC)

Stef Coburn, whose father wrote the very first episode of the show that aired in 1963, believes he is entitled to the copyright of the TARDIS, the time machine used in the show. Coburn also claims his father had an informal agreement with BBC that expired when he died (1977), and that the rights should have been transferred to his widow, or Stef's mother. Coburn claims his mother passed those rights on to him earlier this year, giving him reason to pursue payment for every use of the TARDIS since his father's death.

The article indicates Coburn's lawsuit will likely not prosper, and I agree. An informal agreement shared between Coburn Sr. and BBC is not convincing in the court, and the idea of the TARDIS is not protected by law anyway - we discussed in class how copyright does not protect ideas.

Coburn's argument may have other holes in it. The article raises the question of whether Coburn or the producers of the show owned the copyright (if we assume it exists). The article also says there is no way to prove if Coburn Sr. came up with the TARDIS idea, or how much of it can be credited to him in the first place (many sources credit him with the idea of the Police Box exterior, not the entire idea).

BBC has a long history of copyright lawsuits. Most recently Steve Clark claimed he invented Davros, the leader of the dales, for a TV Action Magazine contest in the 1970s, in which contestants created their own comic strip villain. The contest was separate from the TV show, but Jon Pertwee (actor), Terrance Dicks (script editor) and Barry Letts (producer) judged the works. According to the article, the issue is ongoing because it is not clear if the sketches Clark submitted were actually created when he said they were.

Where do you sit during an oral argument?

A few weeks ago we listened to the oral arguments of Brown v. EMA in class. Most of us had never heard oral arguments before and felt sorry for the attorney who went before the state of California.

I found an example from today's session about whether the constitutionality of a town in upstate New York opening its Town Board meetings with mostly Christian prayers. I learned the Supreme Court actually opens its sessions with an invocation of God, but I don't want to get into the details of this case. I'm more interested in how the oral arguments are conducted, specifically where everyone sits.

The Supreme Court website has a cool page about oral arguments (http://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/visitorsguidetooralargument.aspx).

I found the most interesting fact to be that the Supreme Court generally holds two one-hour arguments a day, at 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. The arguments are held on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesdays each week in two-week intervals from the first Monday in October through late April. That's not a lot of time spent in the courtroom listening to arguments...

Justices enter the Courtroom through three different entrances behind the bench. The Chief Justice and two senior Associate Justices enter through the center entrance, and three Associate Justices enter from the each of the other two entrances.

The Clerk of the Supreme Court sits to the left of the Bench and provides all the materials necessary for the case. The Marshal sits to the right of the Bench. Marshal's aides actually sit behind the Justices and run messages to them.

Of course you have the attorneys. They are seated at the tables facing the Bench. I did not know the arguing attorney has to stand before a lectern in front of the Chief Justice. There are two lights on that lectern: one white and one red. The white light means the attorney has five minutes to present his case. The red light means his time is up.

There are also attorneys who are admitted as members of the Supreme Court Bar who can attend any argument if there is enough room.

Each Justice can have up to four law clerks who listen to the arguments from the chairs that flank the Courtroom on the right. Law clerks are law school graduates who have experience working as clerks for federal judges in a lower court.

Finally you have media members who sit to the left of the Bench, and special guests (retired Justices and officers of the Court, etc.) who sit to the right of the Bench. Interestingly, the special guests are seated in order of seniority of the Justice who invited them.

All oral arguments are open to the public. Seating is filled on a first-come, first-serve basis. There is a three-minute line for people who only want to watch a short amount of the Court in session. Everyone must leave the Courtroom and the Great Hall when the Court adjourns for lunch.

By the way, here is the link to today's oral argument: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-696_6j37.pdf

Does MN have a false light rule?

Someone in class Wednesday asked if Minnesota uses the tort of false light. No one knew the answer to the question, so I thought I'd do some research on my own.

False light as I understand it from class is when a plaintiff is portrayed differently than he/she would be in reality, and it doesn't have to be in a bad way.

I cannot find any evidence that Minnesota recognizes false light. There was a case in 1998, Lake v. Wal-Mart, which led the state to recognize some form of invasion of privacy.

(Here's a link to the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1275949.html)

So what happened in Lake v. Wal-Mart? Three women, 19-year-old Elli Lake, 20-year-old Melissa Weber and Weber's sister vacationed in Mexico in March 1995. During that vacation, Weber's sister took a picture of Lake and Weber while they were showering together. When they returned to Dilworth, Minnesota, Lake and Weber bought five rolls of film at a Wal-Mart. They got their photos printed but received a written notice saying one or more of the photos had not been printed because of their "nature."

Over the next several months Lake and Weber were told the photograph was seen by other employees at the Wal-Mart. By February 1996 someone told Lake one or more copies of the photograph were circulating around the community.

Lake and Weber filed a complaint against Wal-Mart, and at least one complaint against unidentified Wal-Mart employees on February 23, 1996, alleging the four traditional invasion of privacy torts - intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, publication of private facts, and false light publicity. Wal-Mart denied the allegations and tried to have the complaint thrown out because it did not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The district court agreed with Wal-Mart, saying Minnesota did not recognize any of the four invasion of privacy torts. The court of appeals affirmed.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled recognized three of the four torts of inclusion of privacy, including seclusion, appropriation, and publication of private facts. They did not recognize false light publicity because the claims under them are similar to claims of defamation, and thus there is increased tension between it and the First Amendment.

Dr. Sanders said in class false light is the cheap, easy version defamation. I don't see false light being recognized by the state of Minnesota anytime soon, especially with other states dropping the type of tort.

I felt today was a good day to switch from class topics and talk about one of the Supreme Court justices I've read about in class so far this semester.

Justice Hugo Black served on the Supreme Court from 1937 to 1971. He was appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to be an associate justice, and went on to serve the fifth-longest service term in the court's history.

I want to share some background information and lesser-known information I found on Justice Black. He was born Hugo Lafayette Black on February 27, 1886, in Alabama, and was the youngest of eight children.

Hugo actually wanted to become a doctor when he was young. He never finished high school, yet enrolled at Birmingham Medical School and later switched to the University of Alabama School of Law at his brother Orlando's recommendation. Hugo graduated from law school in 1906 and began a legal practice in the town of Ashland, Alabama.

Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, a decision that later drew criticism from voters as he was appointed to the Supreme Court. It is not clear how long he was a member of the group because even after being appointed to the Supreme Court, a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette claimed he was still a member. Black denied his involvement but media and public outrage persisted.

HIs path to the Supreme Court came through supporting Roosevelt's New Deal policies. Interestingly, Black's only previous judicial experience before joining the Supreme Court came in 1911, when he was elected to the Birmingham City Commission to serve as a police court judge. Black only served in that role for about a year because he wanted to practice law full-time. Roosevelt appointed eight more justices after Black, only one of which (William Douglas) served for a longer time.

Black was a World War I veteran. He was a captain in the 81st Field Artillery, but never made it to the battle in Europe.

Justice Black married Josephine Foster in 1921 and had three children, Hugo L. Black (who became an attorney), Sterling Foster, and Martha Josephine. Josephine died in 1951, and Black remarried in 1957.

This week we talked about the Sullivan v. New York Times case which set the precedent for actual malice. Black was an associate justice in that case. He was also part of the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954 that declared school racial segregation illegal.

Black became ill in the summer of 1971, and only a week after retiring suffered a stroke. He died on September 25, 1971 at the age of 85.

Interesting Video about First Amendment Rights

Came across a very interesting video this afternoon regarding First Amendment freedom of speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EosaP99J3Z8&feature=player_embedded

Above is the link to the video of a student at Modesto Junior College trying to hand out copies of the Constitution on September 17, Constitution Day.

The man's name is Robert Van Tuinen. He's an army veteran who now goes to school at Modesto.

As I watched the video, I got the feeling Van Tuinen was looking to start an argument - just like the security officer said. It seemed like Van Tuinen was nervous or worked up - I couldn't really see him in the video - and his responses were short and emotional. His reasoning seemed legitimate though, so I thought he was in the right according to the law despite how he acted.

The school's argument against Van Tuinen was that he did not register in advance to hand out his copies of the Constitution, and was not handing them out in the school's designated free speech zone - which you learn was unavailable that day.

The school administrator asked Van Tuinen for a copy of his material and a copy of his student ID. She told him he would have to wait until September 20 or later to use the free speech zone.

Van Tuinen, who got all of this on the video you watched above, sued the school and will challenge the school's policies for violating the First Amendment.

It turns out Van Tuinen had every right to hand out his copies of the Constitution. The campus' president issued a statement saying students are allowed to distribute printed material outside of the free speech zone as long as it does not disrupt the orderly operation of the college.

Way to go Van Tuinen for calling the school out on its policies. I think he could have carried himself more maturely around the security officer and administrator, but I give him credit for standing his ground.

I have a few questions from this. How can Modesto have such a small free speech zone? And how can you limit free speech to one party at a time? Why should there be a limit on how many people/groups can express their freedom of speech?

Definitely a good incident to talk about First Amendment rights.

Interesting video about a student at Modesto Junior College trying to hand out copies of the Constitution on Constitution Day September 17. My thoughts and questions about the incident are in the next post.

The Seven Dirty Words Further Investigated

We spent part of Monday’s class discussing George Carlin’s seven dirty words (if you’re not in JOUR 3776 or missed class they are shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits). Many of us in class, myself included, laughed here and there throughout the roughly 10-minute video clip, partly because of the way Carlin delivered his standup material, partly because they are words we see used every day in conversation.

Video of Carlin and his seven dirty words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZhpf3sQxQ

That got me thinking about a few things this afternoon. First, my generation probably doesn’t have the same shock value that Carlin’s audience had when it first heard the list of words back in 1972. Maybe I’m wrong, but the words have become more loosely used in the past four decades. That’s not really the point of controversy with the words though. The issue is whether they should be broadcast on radio and television. I say no, they don’t belong on the airwaves or on our tv screen, especially during the daytime hours when kids as old as my cousins have control of the tv remote and hundreds of channels.

Interview about the seven dirty words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMyDvqnwIm4

Second, I was wondering what Carlin would think of his monologue today (he passed away in 2008). I found a link to an interview he did in 2007 about the seven dirty words. In that interview, he said his left side of his brain couldn’t understand why you couldn’t say those seven words. He discovered some of the words were safe when used in context other than sexually explicit.

“I said let me separate these then,” Carlin said in the interview. “Which ones don’t have saving meanings, which ones don’t have a saving grace to them?”

He worked his way through a series of controversial words and stopped on cunt. It didn’t have another meaning that was appropriate, so he put it on his list. It was appealing because it didn’t have another suitable meaning and the public/government didn’t like the idea of the word’s meaning – its association to a sexual act.

“It’s the word, and these are the seven I could come up with that you could never say,” Carlin said.

Well it didn’t take long for Carlin’s list to make it into his comedy routine. He started building sentences that used the dirty words but in a different meaning so that it was acceptable. We all know what happened after he put it on his album “Class Clown” in 1972 and a radio station later broadcast the monologue uncensored.

Carlin said the standard for the word piss changed from 1972 to his interview in 2007. He said piss is now acceptable if you’re pissed off. It’s still unacceptable to be pissed on. His argument is that when you change the preposition you get in trouble.

Carlin said inconsistency is just a wonderful thing to catch. He enjoyed that “gotcha” moment when he caught culture with its pants down. TV arguably does the same thing today. Was Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl not a “gotcha” moment? How about Cher at the Billboard Awards? It’s ironic how TV loves those moments because of the attention it draws, not so much for the government penalties it generates. History is just repeating itself decades later.

Interesting Washington Post graphic on Government Shutdown

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/government-shutdown-begins-senate-expected-to-reject-latest-house-proposal/2013/10/01/ef464556-2a88-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html

Above is a link to a Washington Post article published Wednesday about the recent government shutdown. Today's article focused on the prolonged effects the shutdown will have and what government officials, including President Obama, are doing to come to an agreement. I found the article to be informative as always, but was more interested in the comments link near the top of the story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/your-own-words/govt-shutdown/

It asks readers to share their personal experiences/impacts of the shutdown in about 300 words. According to Google, over 2,000 comments had already been posted within the first 15 minutes when I viewed the story.

I clicked on the link to see what people had posted. I mostly found stories of frustration and disappointment. Soldiers and military personnel who cannot be discharged, veterans who cannot receive financial aid to support themselves. A Smithsonian scientist who cannot get supplies or send samples for analysis - an important aspect of his job.

Most of the respondents were federal employees- active and retired. The chart also portrayed who receives government benefits, who lives in the Washington D.C. area, and who will just be inconvenienced.

The media will be all over the government shutdown long after an agreement is reached. With so many stories, videos, pictures, and internet posts already being published this week, I think many readers will be sick of the coverage by as soon as this weekend. But there's something to be said about the effort put forth by the Washington Post. At a minimum they needed the post the video and web-version of the story. I think the graphic and subsequent comments added a unique aspect to their coverage. I'm guessing it probably wasn't difficult to make, and it can capture the attention of thousands of viewers who may want to read the comments of those impacted. The more difficult part may be to keep updating the graphic as more comments come in. I would like to see the Post follow through on that, as well as spread the discussion to other platforms of social media.

Media organizations have the privilege and First Amendment right to document the major news stories of our time. This is certainly one of those cases, and I encourage organizations such as the Washington Post to be creative in their reporting.

Review: Conversation Among Crafts

On September 17 I attended the Conversation Among Crafts discussion in Murphy Hall. I did not truly know what to expect heading into a panel session about open access laws, but was impressed by the experiences and information shared by the panel of Matt Ehling, Janet Hey, MaryJo Webster and Tony Webster. The troubles and frustrations they described are relevant to any journalism student, including me.

MaryJo Webster

I am well aware of how some public data access experiences can go, especially when working with government offices. I remember one time spending an hour at the police station fighting the records agent about my right to see a police report. I sent her back to look for the report three times before she finally gave it to me. She told me she was looking under the wrong name.

Matt Ehling

That may be true, but at the time I felt she was trying to just get rid of me even though I had the right to that information.

Tony Webster

I thought the panel made a good point about how in some cases the government employees don't know the procedures or rules of public access when working with journalists. There have also been numerous times when people in that very same police station asked me about procedures when I came in to look at certain public documents.

Janet Hey

Janet Hey was very open about not giving the government any excuses for the inefficiencies of gathering public data. A representative of the Information Policy Analysis Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration, Hey provided the most influential information about public records access, telling everyone about the day-to-day experiences of a government worker dealing with data requests. I appreciated her honesty about sharing the government’s side of the issue, and found her tips to better approaching data gathering helpful. I think we could use a representative like her to speak more often to students in journalism classes, as her explanation of how to go about working with government offices would greatly beneficial.

The Conversation among Crafts was held Tuesday, September 17 at Murphy Hall. I enjoyed learning more about accessing data from public sources and what types of information are available from government agencies.

Test Post

Test text post for JOUR 3776.

#writing

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Nick Tabbert