advertisement

DAVID ROSMAN: Trust of the press lacking

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 | 12:01 a.m. CST; updated 12:49 p.m. CST, Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Two issues came to my attention this week. Though they might not seem to have a connection, they do. That connection concerns the First Amendment of the Constitution, public debate and truthfulness of the press. The press, in this case, includes the traditional and nontraditional sources that provide either/or political or conspiratorial news, some to the extreme. Both issues came to me through the National Conference of Editorial Writers.

The first, a threaded discussion, concerns a libel suit against the Anniston (Ala.) Star newspaper. That suit involves a city official claiming libel for an article written about him that, at least from my point, was most likely factually correct.

Anniston Star editor Bob Davis and I talked about the libel suit. The question concerns Anniston City Councilman Ben Little and a rumored affair with contractor Yolanda Jackson, whether the newspaper confirmed the allegations provided by another councilman and whether the paper committed the libelous act of “Tort-by-Outrage,” defined as when one party, “by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress.” The case was originally dismissed under a summary judgment: no evidence.

In returning the case to the lower court, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals cited U.S. Supreme Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan, that “‘clear and convincing’ evidence requirement applies,” and “the record could support [that] reasonable jury” could find for or against the plaintiff. The upper court found that, “the trial court erred” in its decision by its summary judgment.

What the Alabama upper court did not cite was another part of the Supreme Court decision. “(W)e consider (NYT v. Sullivan) against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

How open should public debate be, even if it goes “caustic?” We will have to wait and see.

The second issue is a Houston Chronicle article concerning a member of faculty at the Texas A&M system’s Tarleton State University who was told that if he teaches his students how to use the Texas Public Information Act, he could be fired.

Dan Malone, an instructor at Tarleton State, is also a co-chair of the Light of Day Project, a program run by the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.

Students are instructed on the use of public information laws and “submit Texas Public Information Act requests to various governmental agencies, including universities.”

There seems to be a small problem. The Texas A&M system rule states, “A faculty member can't direct students to submit a public information request to Tarleton or any other member of the A&M system.” Evidently, A&M is above the law.

I spoke with MU associate professor Charles Davis, who works under a grant from the John L. Knight Foundation for the National Freedom of Information Coalition. He told me that the libel suit was a “bizarre outlier,” and there is not a rule even remotely like this anywhere.

What do these two law suits have in common? Why should you care?

Both revive my earliest memories of a government official attacking the Fourth Estate. Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s first vice president, upset by how the press treated both the president and the United States’ continuation of the war in Vietnam. For the younger crowd, Agnew described the press as “[a] tiny and closed fraternity of privileged men, elected by no one, and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by government,” and said, “Some newspapers are fit only to line the bottom of bird cages.” My bird loves the other Columbia paper.

There is a growing distrust in our news services by the public, government and citizens. Distrust that someone might be telling the “truth” through honest and exacting research. The “truth,” it seems, is something too many citizens do not want to hear.

The Constitution (Agnew’s bane) gave the press an important role in the governing of the United States: To keep public officials honest and the citizens informed. Yet distrust of the press, its real or perceived liberal or conservative biases, has caused only further distrust on our government. And we, the press, have done little to fix the problem.

David Rosman is an award-winning editor, writer, professional speaker and college instructor in communications, ethics, business and politics. You can read more of David’s commentaries at InkandVoice.com and New York Journal of Books.

 


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Ellis Smith December 8, 2010 | 4:45 a.m.

Houston, Texas, AP:

NASA officials announced today that the result their six year orbiting satellite probe of the state of Texas has determined conclusively that there is NO intelligent life either in or around College Station, Texas.

Similar probing of the state of Missouri, north of the Missouri River as that river passes through the state, will continue. To date intelligent life in that area is believed to be non-existent except in a small city named "Kirksville."

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 8, 2010 | 11:04 a.m.

Hey, don't feel bad. They like wikileaks even less than you!

(Report Comment)
Darin Gully December 8, 2010 | 8:18 p.m.

Actually, David, I think the press' problem is that 24/7 news coverage has compelled many journalists and news organizations to report on incomplete (and often times misinformed) accounts of some story just so the competition won't beat them to it. But don't worry: the news industry is still more popular than Congress/politicians (at least until traditional media go the way of the telegram).

(Report Comment)
Rich Balldinger December 8, 2010 | 10:14 p.m.

@Darin Gully

I agree that is "a" problem. "The" problem is that a large segment of our society is too lazy to inform themselves from diverse news sources to "stay in the lane".

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin December 9, 2010 | 4:35 p.m.

Yup.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 10, 2010 | 12:17 p.m.

So then Davey, why did you use this space to run an attack on me?

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire December 10, 2010 | 1:09 p.m.

Oh wow. I just found a neat little glitch in your employers website...

I posted that comment on your "political attack ads worthless in making smart decisions" column. But it stuck on here because this is the article I was viewing first when I decided to follow the link to the other article.

But HEY, it still fits somewhat... Do you think that you will gain the trust of your readers by adopting an elitist attitude and launching unsubstantiated snubs at people who read articles and debate them? I think not.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements