Program addresses media access

June 3, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IL staff reporter Rebecca Berfanger wrote this post.

Here at Indiana Lawyer it usually isn’t too difficult to get information for articles. While that’s not always the case, for the most part our sources are our readers and subscribers. So I like to think they understand that by helping IL reporters their information will be treated fairly and accurately. In fact, sometimes I’m still surprised how much information attorneys are willing to share with me on some stories. It’s also a pleasant surprise that many sources are willing to go the extra mile to share information, including a cell phone number to reach them when they’re out of the office, or an e-mail sent long after regular business hours are over.

But not every bit of information is easy to find, and we’re not naïve in thinking that every journalist has it as easy as we often do when it comes to information gathering.

To explain what journalists have to overcome, Indiana University Maurer School of Law – Bloomington, with support from the I.U. School of Journalism, WTIU and Elon University has put together a new DVD: “Access Denied: Navigating the Legal Challenges to Newsgathering.” It features a round-table discussion of scholars, journalists, and attorneys on some of the issues journalists face when trying to access information that prior to 9/11 was thought of as public and accessible.

The program will also air on Bloomington PBS affiliate WTIU, which is also available to DirecTV and Dish Network subscribers with the Indianapolis local stations package. The first part was broadcast today at 1 p.m., and will again be aired June 10 at 9 p.m., and June 20 at 4 p.m. The second part will air June 10 at 1 p.m., June 17 at 9 p.m., and June 20 at 5 p.m.

“New privacy rights, restrictions on federal and state freedom of information laws, secret judicial dockets and the closure of traditionally public records are making information harder to access in both the public and private sectors,” professor Fred H. Cate, who moderated the forum, said in a news release.

Panelists include David Cuillier, a former reporter and editor and current assistant professor in the University of Arizona School of Journalism and the Freedom of Information Committee chairman for the Society of Professional Journalists; Stephen Key, a former journalist who is general counsel for the Hoosier State Press Association, which happens to be in the same building as Indiana Lawyer’s offices; Jane E. Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law and a faculty member at the University of Minnesota; Toni Locy, the Donald W. Reynolds Professor of Legal Reporting at Washington & Lee University and a former reporter for the Washington Post, USA Today, and the Associated Press; and Dennis R. Ryerson, editor and vice president of The Indianapolis Star.

“Every communication and journalism school in the United States, every law school offering media and communications law courses, every state media association, and every state open records or public access group,” will receive a copy of the DVD, according to the release. There will also be a discussion guide available online.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT