18 thoughts on “Media Law”

1. Media needs protection just like people who are on trail as witnesses. Without the media today the world would not know how to function. If people are dealing with the media and they are spreading others information then they need the best protection possible. When your involved in someone else’s issues and you are exposing them you are now putting your life in danger. Certain states has laws that protect them from the press and protect their freedom of speech. Furthermore if news reporters didn’t speak so negatively about whomever then there will never be any need for protection. Most news reporters are bias they only go with what everyone else agrees to. Without protection journalist would not have anyway to report there stories and issues. For this reason reporters need protection is so that they can do their job. Furthermore just think outside of them being reporters , if you felt threatened doing your job wouldn’t you want protection to?

2. Because news reporting is becoming more available through different medias it is very common that a reporter or writer will face scrutiny. News organizations are now finding new ways to reach viewers, this is largely attributed to the upraise of a socially evolving world. Online news reporting has expanded to social websites that are constantly growing in popularity. For example: twitter has been a media targeted by news stations that are utilizing the tools and the millions of users are able to access the stories that these organizations are posting.

   Writers need to be protected especially now and in the future because of how many more people will see what they are reporting. When using informants, it is vital that their names remain out of the story if they request to be left anonymous. It is extremely important that a reporter also gives care to the fact that nothing is left unnoticed when using websites such as Facebook or other sites that divulge personal information. Every single piece of information used in their stories need to be authenticated so that no mistakes happen. It leaves no room for error and will safeguard a writers career.

3. As citizens of the United States, we are granted the permission to speak freely. Journalists adhere to these rights and also follow their own code of conduct, or ways to present information without infringing on the rights of others, or hurting the reputation of another. Due to the purpose of their job, to tell the details, investigate and reveal truths, whether controversial or pleasant, journalists need protection as well.

   Journalists deal with the public, and communities of all sizes, and each response is vital to their art. However, as with anything, not everyone is going to agree or like what is being said. As journalists need to protect the rights and reputations of people in their reports, the same needs to be said for them, because they are the ones telling the story they are easy targets to slander, lawsuits, harassments and even in extreme cases the media is targeted and live are threatened. Therefore, laws are put into place to protect the journalist and to ensure that his or her job isn’t a reflection upon them and their safety.

4. As citizens of the United States, we are all granted the right to speak freely, a right protected by the first amendment. Journalists deserve this right more than anyone, having to talk about any topic under the sun. For this reason, I feel journalists should have some sort of protection when putting out stories on the Internet.

   Media journalism is a whole different aspect of journalism from what the world is used to. One of the major differences is audience interaction. Typically, news websites allow readers to comment on the articles they read to share opinions and start conversations. Usually, there are people that take advantage of the comments section and use it for the exact purpose of its creation. Unfortunately, there are also a vast group of people that take the time to bash the writers and the material they wrote in the comments. Comments like these can be very dangerous to the author. That being said, I believe protection and support is crucial for the authors of today.

5. At first, it might seem strange to consider that a member of the press would need legal protection. After all, a journalist’s main duties include gathering information and organizing it into a concise, comphrensive document. It doesn’t sound like a dangerous job. In reality, of course, life is unpredictable. Ideally, no difficult or dangerous situations would arise as a journalist investigates a story. But because journalism covers such a wide range of subjects, some of them more sensitive than others, protection of some sort is vital.

   For example, consider a situation where a journalist is reporting on a particular crime. Many times, crimes are reported before a verdict has been reached or all the information has been uncovered; this is why when journalists describe someone who may have committed a murder, they must describe him as “the alleged killer,” even if nearly everyone is positive he is responsible. In potentially threatening and sensitive situations that relate to serious crimes, it’s a good idea for a journalist to have some kind of legal protection just in case someone out there finds fault with their reporting. Although freedom of speech does exist, there will always be people who find fault with the way the news is reported.

6. No matter what kind of news a journalist writes and publishes, there will always be a certain amount of readers who don’t quite agree with what is being said. With that, every journalist should have some type of protection from those who strongly disagree with what they have reported.

   I feel that this is quite ridiculous. Everyone has the freedom to write whatever they desire. The fact that a journalist is able to have writings published for everyone to see should not make a difference. It is natural not to always agree with what others say, but harm should not be done to another person for not having similar views.

   Others might cause harm to those of the press just to prove that a reported story is, in their eyes, incorrect or just because they aren’t happy with the news itself. By having your name on a story, a journalist puts their well being in danger of those who may not agree.

7. Protection for journalist is vital. Majority of things published don’t necessarily make people “happy.” But, that’s because these things aren’t meant to please people. It’s meant to inform people about what’s going on. If journalists didn’t have protection, chaos would break out. They wouldn’t be able to publish the truth about the stories. They would end up having to sugarcoat everything, just to let the readers be happy!

   I personally wouldn’t want to be a journalist, if I didn’t have any protection. It would make me feel insecure about my job and basically set up limitations for me. That’s something I’m sure no journalist or press of any sort would want to deal with. There are just so many controversial topics and if the journalist don’t have the opportunity to protect themselves, then the first amendment would be violated. Journalists have the right to speak on these issues and put the news out there.
   Journalists also have the right to be protected and keep their names confidential, if needed.

8. Journalists have the right to let their voices be heard through journalism. This right is protected by the first amendment which states that all people have the right to free speech. This in turn provides protection to the journalists and keeps them out of trouble. Without this protection journalists would not state the whole truth and would focus on what would make everybody happy instead of the most important facts on a story. Something that sounds even remotely negative toward any person on either side of the story would be left out any everyone who reads it would not be getting all the facts. Which in turn would leave the people wanting to know more, but the journalists would be too scarred to report it. This is why journalists need to feel safe and secure when reporting the facts to the public. Otherwise story qualities would lack severly and no one wants that. That is why journalists need protection.

9. For every story, there is always a response from the public. There would be no need for protection if all news reports had a positive response, but not all stories garner praise. I’d bet half of the news stories are responded to in an extremely negative manner. Without protection for journalists, there would be nothing to prevent retribution from the public against the journalist that brought light an issue discussed in the hated story.

   And, without proper protection, no one would want to be a journalist. No one would be left to investigate the truth. If there is a threat of danger to a journalist, the risk might outweigh his or her desire to write a good, thought-provoking story that exposes a nasty truth that some may want hidden. We would only be left with light, cheery stories that hold no real value. There would be nothing to keep big businesses or the government in check if there was no one who dared to find the truth.

10. In my opinion it is imperative that journalists have protection rights so that they may report on the controversial topics this country is steeped in. Some of these rights are guaranteed under the constitution’s first amendment; which prohibits the limitation of freedom of speech and guarantees the protection of the right to freedom of speech. Despite these rights being stated in the constitution, different laws and acts have been passed since the constitution’s inception that have actually challenged and limited these rights to some extent. Atop the First amendment, all states in the union have some variation of “Shield Laws” that have allowed reporters to withhold a confidential informants name upon request without fear of prosecution amongst other privileges. Journalists are also guaranteed protection against accusations of libel, given they navigate the treacherous grey area of ethics appropriately. I feel that perhaps now more than ever, Journalists need to be able to protect themselves. And the only way to do this is by cultivating an understanding of media law and acting according to the boundaries it puts in place. Only then will a Journalist be able to effectively report on the pressing matters that comprise the current era.

11. A journalist needs protection for a number of reasons. First and foremost, as seems to be the hot topic among these other comments, is freedom of speech. While freedom of speech is a guarantee in this country, people’s reactions are not set in stone. What a journalist might find to be an objective standpoint on an individual could be misconstrued as offensive by said individual. It is one of those issues where one wouldn’t even think to worry until the call comes in that a lawsuit has been filed. For reasons as such, a journalist absolutely needs protection.

    Additionally, journalists require protection from other journalists. Though journalists are supposed to write purely objective facts about their stories, journalism is still a creativity-driven industry. No matter the level of objectivity, all writing is semi-autobiographical and each writer will inherently write in a unique voice. This lends itself to plagiarism. Journalists absolutely need to protect themselves from being plagiarized, if not for the reason that it’s an ethical violation than for the worst case scenario that a piece is stolen from somebody, passed off as another’s and person #1 is accused of being the thief. As outrageous and unrealistic as that scenario sounds, I wouldn’t doubt it has happened among journalists.

    It is an interesting concept: a writer needing legal protection. However, it is a necessity. As with most things in life precautions should always be taken, and when the consequences of problems can lead to a loss of job or career then I say find all the protection you can.

12. In my opinion, members of the press need to be protected in order for them to speak out freely on controversial issues around the world. If they cannot keep their names anonymous, they are in constant fear of persecution from the groups and other individuals who disagrees with their insight on the news. Since many of the issues concerns about the government politics and law which majority of people are sensitive about so it is important for the members of the press to be protected. Without protection, it would both jeopardize the press members as well as the company’s reputation. Because of this, many of the news we see on the television are always made so that the media is unbiased on the issue. The more personal intellect and insight on the news create disagreeing arguments and so on. In order to avoid this, laws such as the “shield law” was made in several states to protect the names about the informant and its press.

13. There are a lot of reasons the press needs the law to protect them. They have the right to speak, but not everyone will agree with the writer. A lot of times a journalist needs to know they are protected to do their job properly. Especially when they need to report on something scandalous or with a business. The people they are reporting on may not want the information released and try to go after the journalist that reported it and made it available to the public. Journalists often need to write articles about something not everyone will agree on, as well. They need to have the freedom to say what they need to get the news out to the public without the fear of being sued or getting into legal trouble. It’s a journalists job to find out any information on a topic. Sometimes it can be dangerous and they may step on a few toes along the way, but they need to know they are protected by the law to do what the job entails.

14. Journalists need protection in order to have freedom to report on more controversial subjects without fear of repercussions. If a reporter is on the verge of uncovering a scandal at major business or corporation they need to be able to talk with people on the inside without fear of jeopardizing the career or life of the sources they obtain their information from. In situations of these nature they need to be able to keep the people willing to speak on a situation anonymous to insure that people do not have to be afraid to speak out when necessary. Without these shield laws journalists would have no ethical way to effectively to their job of reporting the news reliably and factually correct. They would have no way to fulfill their duty to the public and give people what they have the right to know. This is why it is essential that reporters have laws to help protect their rights and the rights of others.

15. Members of the press need protection if they are doing any kind of reporting on anything that has to do with the government to avoid prosecution or fines. In the United States, some states have a law that will protect members of the press from any prosecution or fines if they refuse to keep their informant confidential and this is called the shield law. Also, members of the press are afforded protection from accusations of libel, this provides that the members of press acted in an ethical manner when obtaining facts and reporting those facts. The reason for all of this is so that the press doesn’t fear retribution from anyone who is news-worthy. Also, the press doesn’t want to ruin their reputation by giving up their informant or ruin any chance of making new bonds with new informants. Members of the press who are taking big risk and doing a report on a scandal that is being done on a large company can be making enemies.

16. There are several ways that the law provides protection to members of the press. First amendment protection ensures that members of the press are able to report on governmental matters without fear of prosecution. Most states also have “shield laws” that protect members of the press from prosecution if they refuse to name a confidential informant. Reporters are also afforded protection from accusations of libel, provided that they acted in an ethical manner when obtaining or reporting their facts.

    The reason the law provides these protections is simply so that the reporters can do their job without fear of retribution from any news-worthy person or agency, be it governmental or otherwise. There are a few interesting points to be made here, however. The first point is that shield laws, put in place to protect a reporter from being compelled to reveal a confidential source, are only state laws and have not been federally recognized, meaning that reporters can still face contempt charges when testifying in federal court. The second interesting point is that while protections exist to allow reporters to do their job, they are also called, both by law and by their peers, to conduct themselves in an ethical fashion when collecting and reporting their information.

17. We hear it in movies and on television all the time: the people have a right to know. This is what reporters say when trying to get information about a particular situation. It’s because of the people’s right to know that reporters need protection.

    Often times, reporters are not able to get the information that will give the inside details of a story. Reporters have to be ethical and this prevents them from being able to pretend to be someone they aren’t in order to get details. A reporter can’t get a job with the intent of learning details of illegal or otherwise shady dealings. Because of this, reporter’s have confidential informants, often times people that do work for a company that is involved in activity they shouldn’t be involved in.

    Reporters need protection so that they don’t have to give up their confidential informants. By giving up the names of these people, they are putting them in jeopardy. Since the reporter’s cannot get the information that the people have a right to know, they need someone to help them. But no one would ever help unless they know the reporter won’t give them up.

18. Members of the media need protection because without it the media could not function. Take for example the fact that a lot of information, especially in some of the most interesting articles, comes from informants who wish to remain anonymous for various reasons. If members of the media were forced to give up their informants then they would be ruining not only their reputation but also any ability to form new bonds. Seeing how the main function of the media is to report the news this inhibits the media from doing its job. Also equally important is the fact that the members of the media need rights in order to feel okay with what they do. A journalist who is reporting on a scandal on a big company is already taking a risk and surely making some enemies. Now imagine not having the right to keep your informant secret. You would be feeling hatred from multiple angles then. How can you do your job without some basic form of protection? Who would want to pursue such a career?