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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT