Media Nation

In Wisconsin, a FOIA request too far

As a journalist, my inclination is to support public-records laws that guarantee maximum disclosure. As an ordinary citizen, it’s sometimes unclear to me exactly how far those laws ought to go.

You may have heard that Wisconsin Republicans have filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain private emails written by or to a history professor named William Cronon, whose blog has become a focal point in the battle over the rights of public-employee unions in that state.

Cronon may have to comply because he teaches at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, a state university and thus subject to Wisconsin’s strict public-records laws.

One strong argument against disclosure — and one invoked by Cronon himself — is the principle of academic freedom. That may well be how Cronon beats this, yet it strikes me as an easy way out. Why should a professor be exempt while, say, a $50,000-a-year career employee in the highway department is subject to having his private emails revealed in response to a FOIA request?

I should note that this does not affect me personally. Northeastern is a private university. But I don’t see why I should be safe from the long arm of FOIA while my colleagues at UMass are not.

Like Paul Krugman, I make some attempt to use my work email address for professional business and my personal address for everything else. But it’s mainly for my organizational benefit, and I’m not all that painstaking about keeping the two accounts separate.

I’m not sure what the answer is. It seems to me that some officials higher up the food chain ought to be subject to FOIA laws, but that ordinary employees should not. Of course, such officials’ correspondence with ordinary employees would be covered. But I shouldn’t be able to FOIA the email of anyone just because he or she happens to draw a government paycheck.

Mapping their way to cheap eats

[googlemaps https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=217976351939574142965.00049ed98f794470e5925&ll=42.343955,-71.089697&spn=0.022204,0.036478&z=14&output=embed&w=425&h=350]

Please have a look at my students’ Google map project in my Reinventing the News class. Every semester, this is always one of my favorites: students fan out into the neighborhhoods around Northeastern to take pictures, write blog posts and plot them on a map. This time, they chose to review cheap-eats places in and around the Back Bay.

The project is currently near the top of Boston.com’s Your Town/Back Bay site (Northeastern has a partnership with the Boston Globe to provide content to Your Town). I think the students did a great job. They took it seriously, they had fun and they learned something about how free, easy-to-use online tools such as mapping can enhance journalism.

Update: It’s featured prominently on the Your Town/Roxbury site as well.

Did the Times overstate Japan’s nuke crisis?

It was a week ago today that the New York Times ran this lede:

Japan faced the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident Tuesday morning, as an explosion at the most crippled of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station damaged its crucial steel containment structure, emergency workers were withdrawn from the plant, and much larger emissions of radioactive materials appeared imminent, according to official statements and industry executives informed about the developments.

The headline, which led NYTimes.com that night: “Japan Faces Potential Nuclear Disaster as Radiation Levels Rise.”

We can all be grateful that the worst hasn’t happened. It appears that the nuclear situation in Japan, despite continued setbacks, may slowly be coming under control. So my question this morning is whether the Times grossly overstated what was happening on that scary night.

A news organization should not lightly assert “the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident.”

Censors at Apple asked to censor

Unfortunately for Apple, it has forfeited its right to assert free-speech protection because of the censorious manner in which it has run its iTunes Store. So when a group of gay activists demands that Apple remove an app claiming it can “cure” people of homosexuality, what can we do except agree?

The day Apple stops discriminating against certain types of content is the day I come to the company’s defense.

New York Times: Pay us less and we’ll give you more

As best as I can figure out, it will soon be cheaper to get access to all of the New York Times’ digital products and the Sunday print edition too than it will to go paperless. Let’s run down the math.

Every three months, Media Nation Central pays $97.50 for home delivery of the Sunday Times. Under the new pay scheme announced last week, that entitles us to free access to most of the Times’ electronic delivery options: NYTimes.com, Times Reader, and apps for smartphones and tablets. (Kindle and Nook editions aren’t included in any of the just-announced options.)

On the other hand, if we don’t get the print edition at all, it will cost us $35 every four weeks for the same electronic package. That’s $113.75 every three months, or $16.25 more than getting the identical range of products plus the Sunday paper. That’s a markup of nearly 17 percent.

Now, Times executives have every incentive in the world to push the Sunday paper: it’s where most of the advertising revenue comes from. I’ve been told that the Boston Globe makes as much as two-thirds of its money from the Sunday paper. It’s probably about the same at the Times.

Still, it seems odd that the Times has deliberately set up a system under which you get more if you pay less — although, granted, I’m not factoring in the cost of tips, which should bring the price of paper-plus-electronic to somewhat more than electronic-only.

More progress on the “M”-word

Robert Bertsche, a prominent First Amendment lawyer in Boston, passes along the latest news from the AP Stylebook Online (yes, I’m too cheap to subscribe):

dwarf The preferred term for people with a medical or genetic condition resulting in short stature. Plural is dwarfs.

midget Considered offensive when used to describe a person of short stature. Dwarf is the preferred term for people with that medical or genetic condition.

My 2004 edition of the AP Stylebook does not contain an entry for either word. Clearly the dwarfism community is making progress in its efforts to educate the public about the “M”-word.

In 2009, the New York Times’ then-public editor, Clark Hoyt, wrote that the Times had concluded the “M”-word was offensive.

I discuss the rise and fall of the “M”-word in Chapter Seven of my book on dwarfism, “Little People.”

Thoughts on the N.Y. Times’ modified limited paywall

Earlier today, Lois Beckett of the Nieman Journalism Lab asked me and a number of other media observers to write brief commentaries on the New York Times’ modified limited paywall, which was announced this morning. She got some interesting responses, ranging from Steve Buttry (“ridiculous”) to Amy Webb (“a wise move”). Here’s what I wrote:

The New York Times is taking a smart and nuanced approach. Times executives have struck an interesting balance between charging heavy users for access while remaining part of the free online conversation that’s become such an important part of the media ecosystem. I have no idea whether a limit of 20 free articles a month is too little, too much or just right, but I assume they’ll adjust in response to what the market tells them.

I was also pleased to see that print subscribers, including Sunday-only customers (like our family), will have free access to most of the Times’ online platforms. The Sunday paper remains a vital source of revenue for the Times, and it makes sense for Arthur Sulzberger, Janet Robinson and company to do whatever they can to preserve that money machine.

That said, the Times will no longer be able to make excuses for glitchy software and access problems. I’m reasonably happy with the Times iPhone app, but my wife reads the Times on her iPad, and it’s buggy. You can get away with that when it’s free. But once you put a price tag on your product, you’ve got to guarantee that it works — and be responsive to consumer complaints when it doesn’t. That’s especially true given that the Times is charging more for electronic access than many had predicted.

The news business may be watching this very closely to see what lessons can be drawn, but I’m not sure that there will be many, because the Times is such a unique product. For many people, the Times may be the one “newspaper” for which they’re willing to pay to read online. Rather than paving the way for other newspapers, the Times’ paywall may instead lead to a further stratification of the news business, as executives at other papers find themselves unable to emulate the Times’ success in persuading customers to pay for electronic access.

The announcement was pretty much along the lines of what the Times said was coming months ago, though the fees for non-print subscribers ($15 to $35 every four weeks depending on your platforms) are higher than some had expected. There are also all kinds of exceptions regarding Twitter and Facebook access, top news on smartphones and the like.

The plan is very different from one that will be unveiled later this year by a sister Times Co. property, the Boston Globe, which announced last fall that it would divide its Web offerings into a free Boston.com (filled mostly with content that doesn’t appear in the Globe) and a paid BostonGlobe.com.

Last October, I interviewed Globe publisher Chris Mayer about his paywall plans.

A very scary night

NYTimes.com’s lead headline right now is about as horrifying as it gets: “Japan Faces Potential Nuclear Disaster as Radiation Levels Rise.” The lede:

Japan faced the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident Tuesday morning, as an explosion at the most crippled of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station damaged its crucial steel containment structure, emergency workers were withdrawn from the plant, and much larger emissions of radioactive materials appeared immiment, according to official statements and industry executives informed about the developments.

Note the wording: the “likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident.”

I’ve been watching NHK’s English-language service at CNN.com. It is not reassuring, despite the cool élan of the on-air folks.

Police officer vows to defy First Amendment

Last fall, the New Haven Police Department came under criticism after officers were caught harassing people trying to video-record them while they were making arrests during a crackdown on rowdy bars. In one instance, according to an internal report, a commanding officer went so far as to confiscate an iPhone and order another officer to erase the video.

Police Chief Frank Limon, in response, said publicly that citizens have a right to video-record the police as long as they don’t interfere. Officers are attending training sessions reinforcing that message. And Limon recently issued a general order putting it into writing.

So what do you do when an officer — posting pseudonymously in the comments section of the New Haven Independent, a five-year-old non-profit news site — makes it clear that he’s going to keep doing things his way?

It’s an interesting question, and one with no easy answer.

On March 3, Independent editor and publisher Paul Bass covered a training session led by Assistant Chief Tobin Hensgen. Nineteen of the department’s more than 400 officers were there. Presumably all of them will be cycled through at some point.

As it happened, I was on one of my reporting trips to New Haven, so I was there. Among other things, I got to see another dimension to the controversy: Hensgen showed a video clip of a handgun convincingly disguised as a cellphone. I can certainly understand why an officer would want to inspect a cellphone if someone were aiming it at him at a crime scene.

Coincidentally, later that afternoon Chief Limon held a news conference at police headquarters to respond to two investigations into incidents of police harassing cellphone-wielding bystanders. (I was on hand for that as well, tagging along with reporter Thomas MacMillan.) Former assistant chief Ariel Melendez was at the center of both incidents. He retired in January with a pension of $124,500.

On Saturday, a commenter who identified himself only as “J” (scroll down) wrote that he was at the training session, and that he would insist on inspecting a cellphone at the scene because of the possibility that it could be a weapon. So far, so good. Then he added this:

Also if I am conducting an investigation involving a juvenile and I find that you are filming I will ask you to stop. If you do not comply I will take your phone and place it into evidence. The identity and image of a juvenile will be protected. Of course if you see a officer abusing a juvenile or anyone for that matter and film it this is a different story.

Bass responded in an “Editor’s Note”:

I believe you will be breaking the law in that latter case. If you do that to us, we will pursue all legal avenues to make sure you are punished. However, I agree with you that we shouldn’t film the juvenile; that is our responsibility. However again, we do feel comfortable filming the scene but leaving the juvenile’s face and identity out of it.

“J” posted again, making it clear that he understood the law, but was going to do what he thought was right regardless:

No, if I am dealing with a juvenile while conducting an investigation then the entire well-being of that child is MY responsibility, not the individual who is filming.

I completely understand that you or anyone would pursue me or any other officer legally, unfortunately that comes with this job.

If I am to be pursued legally my report will show my justification for what I have done and I will have to play the odds. I can say that anything regarding a child plays heavily on the feelings of all adults, so I would find it extremely hard for any court to find fault in what I did. I, however will sleep well knowing I did the right thing legally or not.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

Bass:

We are not disagreeing about what the law says. We are not disagreeing about what the policy is. We are disagreeing about whether you should follow the law; that’s your choice. In terms of protecting the juvenile — in the case of the Independent, we agree not to run the face of a juvenile being arrested. If another citizen or media outlet chooses to run a photo of juvenile in public causing trouble, the law is 100 percent clear that this is legal and permissible and that you are breaking the law if you try to prevent it.

There’s more, but that’s the gist of it. What’s at the heart of this dispute is a little-understood fact: that news organizations protect the identities of juveniles by custom, not as a matter of law. No one is legally prohibited from publishing the name of a juvenile charged with a crime — and, in fact, names often are published if the crime is notorious enough.

Nor do juvenile victims and witnesses enjoy any legal protections against having their identities revealed. Protecting their identities is a custom, and a good one. But making it a matter of law would violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and freedom of the press. The Supreme Court has on several occasions struck down laws that attempt to codify that custom.

What’s interesting about “J” is that he seems to be well aware of that, but doesn’t care. In part, he may be reacting to a legitimate concern about citizen journalism: though a news organization like the Independent isn’t going to publish the names of juveniles, there’s nothing to stop someone with a cellphone camera from posting a video to YouTube that clearly identifies underage suspects, victims and witnesses.

Under the Constitution, though, they have every right to do that. As the saying goes, “What part of ‘no law’ don’t you understand?”