Omln-law-ethics

SESSION THREE: The Future of Journalism: Law and Ethics in a Changing Media Ecosystem

These pages are notes taken by Bill Densmore of the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute while attending and participating April 9, 2010, in a one-day seminar at Harvard Law School: "Journalism's Digital Transition: Unique Legal Challenges and Opportunities." The event was organized by the Online Media Legal Network of the Berkshire Center for Internet & Society at Harvard. There are three panels; we'll build a page on each. THE CONFERENCE AGENDA HAS DETAILS ON PARTICIPANTS AND OVERVIEW TOPICS.

• BACK TO TOP OF THESE NOTES
• The hash tag for today's seminar on Twitter is: #jdt

---

Phil Malone, a Harvard Law clinical professor, is moderating this panel.

Panelists

• Jon Hart, Dow Lohnes PLLC, general counsel to the Online News Association
• Dan Kennedy, assistant professor, Northeastern University School of Journalism, WGBH commentatory
• Josh Stearns, program manager, Freepress.net and SavetheNews.org
• Lucy Dalglish, executive director, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
• Rob Bertsche, Prince Lobel Glovsky & Type, LLP and counsel to New England Newspaper & Press Assn.
• Cameron Stracher, co-director, Program in Law and Journalism, New York University

Discussion

Malone ask each of the panels to provide their summary of the issues.

• Jon Hart: He congratulates Berkman and David Ardia on putting together the Online Media Legal Network. His career has focused on people trying to figure out how to make money doing journalism. He thinks there will be a mix of profit and non-profit going forward.

• Dan Kennedy: He thinks non-profit will be an increasingly important part of the mix. He cites the "small, cheap, fast, foundation-supported journalism" of the New Haven Independent as compelling.

Kennedy: He thinks one problem to discuss is the prohibition against non-profits making political endorsements. "It's a matter of free speech, Congress shall make no law -- what part of no law do you not understand." It was in 1954, when Lyndon Johnson was running in a race in which right-wingers were using McCarthy-like tactics to defeat Johnson. Johnson pushed through a law that prohibited non-profits from working for or against political candidates.

Paul Starr suggested making an exemption for news organizations. "But I'm going to suggest something a little bit more sweeping, and that is that we should just undo the blanket prohibition." He thinks we should remove this restriction from everyone, just just journalists.

• Josh Stearns: He's delighted that people are now talking about the role of public policy and journalism. He's interested in news sharing and credentialing. He cites a non-traditional news organization that has just been pushed out of the state capitol in Minnesota. He's interested in non-traditional ownership models and PEG access.

• Lucy Dalglish: She says no reporter who was in legal trouble has ever had to pay to get legal help from RCFP. She has some major concerns -- "Virtually all of the issues we are dealing with today have to do with money . . . these days, nobody is making enough money."

What does that mean, she asks? Most court cases to advance news gathering were brought by a news organization. "Nobody is going to be out there to fight for this . . . . "

As to access: "Those people in control of those records, those courtrooms, they know you don't have the money to fight them, so they are acting with impunity." In New York, courts are arguing that because there is personal information in court records, "We're just not going to make them public anymore." Her warning is that we have to deal with the consequences of technology. Reporters are gleeful about what the internet can do; Dalglish says the officials are aghast.

She is skeptical about non-profits because she doesn't see how they are sustainable. "Nobody else wants to come in and sustain a program that has somebody else's name printed on it."