1. Law and Ethics in Journalism

2. EQ
What is the difference between laws and ethics? What laws and ethics must journalists adhere to?

3. 7 Ethical Dilemmas Conflict of interest Plagiarism Anonymous Sources
Offending or distasteful content
Invasion of Privacy
Bias
Commitment to accuracy

4. Plagiarism
This is a cardinal sin in journalism. Plagiarists lose their credibility, their reputation and, in most cases, their jobs.
For our purposes plagiarism includes:
Using others words or sources w/out attribution.
Reusing parts of your own work without attribution.
Fabricating events, quotes, or facts.

5. Hall of Shame
Stephen Glass Reporter for The New Republic Over half of his work was fabricated Current Job: Paralegal Interview Here :

6. Hall of Shame Brian Williams Former NBC Nightly News Anchor
And Sesame Street guest star.
His “ego” made him make up untrue
Details about stories he was covering.
Current Job: MSNBC
Interview here:

7. Laws: The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

8. Anonymous Sources
1. Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability. 2. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

9. Offensive Content
According to the Society of Professional Journalists, reporters should:
— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. — Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief. — Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. — Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials. — Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

10. Invasion of Privacy
Some things are off limits: Unreleased Medical Records Many records for minors Unauthorized taped conversations Identities of Minors involved in certain crimes

11. Freedom of Speech is NOT absolute
Limitations
Commercial Speech ( Banning Solicitations)
Obscenity
Private Action (Allows private companies to restrict speech on their property)
Speech that produces a lawless action or could cause such action

12. Slander and Libel
1.Actionable words, such as those imputing the injured party: is guilty of some offense, suffers from a contagious disease or psychological disorder, is unfit for public office because of moral failings or an inability to discharge his or her duties, or lacks integrity in profession, trade or business;
2.That the charge must be false;
3.That the charge must be articulated to a third person, verbally or in writing;
4.That the words are not subject to legal protection, such as those uttered in Congress; and
5.That the charge must be motivated by malice.

13. School Speech: Important Cases
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
The Court ruled as long as there is not "substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities," the students' freedom to express themselves is protected by the First Amendment.

14. Important Cases
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)
This decision enabled administrators to prevent publication of material when their censorship was "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."The Court, however, left that phrase undefined, saying only a court should act to protect student expression when the censorship has "no valid educational purpose."

15. Important Cases Yeo v. Town of Lexington, 131 F.3d 241(1st Cir. 1997)
Students at two public high school student publications -- the newspaper and yearbook -- decided not to publish an advertisement. The two high school student publications declined to publish the advertisement on the grounds each had a policy, albeit unwritten, of not running political or advocacy ads. The courts found that the state, meaning the school, had not been involved in rejecting the ads, students had. So it could not be held responsible for the decisions they made.