New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

J 397 Week 2 Reading Notes

by: Kaitlyn Endo

J 397 Week 2 Reading Notes J 397

Marketplace > University of Oregon > J 397 > J 397 Week 2 Reading Notes
Kaitlyn Endo
GPA 3.43

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Reading Notes for week 2 assigned reading
Media Ethics
Jennifer Schwartz
Class Notes
Media, ethics, journalism
25 ?




Popular in Media Ethics

Popular in Department

This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Kaitlyn Endo on Wednesday October 12, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to J 397 at University of Oregon taught by Jennifer Schwartz in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views.


Reviews for J 397 Week 2 Reading Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 10/12/16
Week 2 Part 3: Privacy • The right to be left alone –interesting because today people share more than ever • Four types of invasion o Private facts—non-newsworthy facts, medical facts, sexual acts, hygiene, personal letters, etc. o Intrusion—intrusion of space where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy o Appropriation—people own the right to their image o False light—misrepresenting, distorting facts or images • Private Facts o Ex: Time Magazine: Starving Glutton § “One night last week pretty Mrs. Dorothy Barber of Kansas City grabbed a candy bar, packed up some clothes, and walked to General Hospital. "I want to stay here," she said between bites. "I want to eat all the time. I can finish a normal meal and be back in the kitchen in ten minutes, eating again." …. (the doctor) found that although she had eaten enough in the past year to feed a family of ten, she had lost (weight)...” § images and privacy: Barber Case • Time magazine took a pic of Dorothy Barber in the hospital without permission and wrote about her unusual eating disorder that caused her to lose weight despite eating a lot of food, calling her “the starving glutton” • This was invasion of privacy § Dorothy Barber—no matter what, loses weight; rare condition—someone contacts TIME and someone comes to ask Q’s, but Barber didn’t know it was for an article; pic was taken without her knowledge à Barber sued fro invasion of privacyà won. If her condition was contagious then could use name…but in her situation, name didn’t need to be used à releasing private facts • Intrusion o Unauthorized entry when gathering news in places where privacy is expected § Ex: homes, bedrooms, changing rooms, bathrooms, etc. o Forbids technology from trespassing § Ex: drones, secret recordings, telephoto, lens, tapped phone lines… o Ex: 1982—Florida Newspaper published § Intrusion? Expectation of right to privacy? § Woman flees scene outside her apartment in Florida and was naked…with only dish towel to cover—she sued for invasion of privacy; she lost because it was a news worthy event o Ex: 1961 Marilyn Monroe § Rural housewife in Alabama took her two sons to a country fair. When she was coming out of a fun house, her dress was blown up by air jets. She was exposed from the waist down. A newspaper photographer took her photo, the newspaper ran it on the front page the next day. § Invasion of privacy? o Ex: fire officials invited a news photographer into the house —intrusion? § Boy died from fire—photographer took pic of outline of body à parents sued for invasion; they won; they didn’t give permission o Ex: Brad Pitt on vacation at a resort in his room/deck —intrusion? § Invasion! o Ex: ABC v Food Lion case § In November 1992, two ABC News producers obtained jobs at Food Lion grocery stores in North and South Carolina by submitting applications with false references, misrepresenting their educational and employment experiences on their resumes and omitting their current employment with the network § ABC broadcasted a report on “Prime Time Live” alleging that Food Lion’s meat department at those stores required employees to eng age in unsafe, unhealthy or illegal practices, including selling old meat that was washed with bleach to kill odor, selling cheese that had been gnawed by rats and working off the time clock § What Reporters Did at Food Lion: each worked undercover only one or two weeks at the store, and while there used hidden cameras to secretly record grocery store employees treating, wrapping and labeling meat, cleaning machinery and discussing meat - department practices § Sued for Trespass—businesses do not have the right to privacy (but have the right to their property) • Appropriation o People own the right to their own image and name o Ex: Actress Alyssa Milano à stills from movie and photoshop sold online o Ex: Indian actress Khushboo sued Maxim for putting her head on a model’s body • False Light o Ex: Saturday Evening Post used a newspaper photo of a child hit by a car in a story about pedestrian carelessness o Ex: “Chic Thrills” porn magazine o Ex: News station (WJLA) story on genital herpes § Long shot of a crowded sidewalk in D.C. § The camera zooms in one woman (Linda Duncan): § The voiceover in the story says: “For the 20 million Americans with herpes, it’s not a cure” o Ex: 1967—a bridge collapsed, killing 44 § Joseph Eszterhas—Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter § Tried to interview window. She was not home, so he talked to her kids § “Margret Cantrell will talk neither about what happened nor about how they are doing. She wears the same mask of non -expression she wore at the funeral. She is a proud woman. Her world has changed. She says that, after it happened, the people in town offered to help them out with money, and they refused to take it” • Speech violating other rights o First Amendment vs. Sixth Amendment § Public has a right to know about actions of legal system § And defendant has the right to a fair trial • Continuance—delay until ublicity decreases • Sequestering—isolate jury to shield from press reports • Change of venue—move to less invested community • Admonition—judge tells the jury to avoid all news media § Wait until publicity dies down —then have trial § Isolate jury § Changing venue to community that’s less invested o Ex: “Bushy-haired stranger” § 1954—a young doctor’s pregnant wife was brutally murdered § newspapers sensationalized the trial • “Getting away with murder” • “sheppard must swing!” • Sam called a ‘Jekyll-Hyde’ by wife; Cousin to testify” (neither true) § Headline not true • Found guilty—retired and found not guilty 12 years later Part 4—Intellectual property rights • Copyright infringement o Using or copying another’s work without consent and/or payment o Idea is to protect people for their creation o If someone scribbles something down—you have copy or witness—person goes out and uses your idea and makes money—original person has right o Individual: last life of an author + 70 years o Corporation: Last 95 years o Idea must be fixed o Do not need to carry the copyright sign o Ex: phorographer sued artist Jeff Koons (couple with bunch of dogs) § Transformative or derivative of copyrighted work? à did not transform ideaà copyright o Ex: photographer v artist Fairey (Obama campaign picture) § Obama signed for art; AP sued artist; Transformative? Derivitive? It was settled artist paid AP o Ex: Photographer posts a series of photos of friend with burrito online v 2015 campaign $2.50 combo deal § Photographer’s friend tweets: LOL, that @McDonalds gives zero fuxs and recreates your ad photos to the tee for themselves @BuzzFeed #burritos • Trademark infringement o Trademark is a word, symbol or device represents a product/company o “All the News That’s Fit” to Print, Xerox, Jell -O, Coca Cola bottle, Kleenex § don’t want people to become product name; if becomes generic term à becomes generalized and loses trademark § ex: zipper Oct 6 o Internet § ISPs and web site owners must remove copyright infringed material when they are told it has been posted § The responsible party is the person posting copyrighted work —not Google via YouTube o Ex: Trademark infringement? Parks Famous Flavor sausage v Park’s Finest (Ballpark) sausage o Ex: “Fox News—Fair and Balanced” § Al Franken’s book “Lies and Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right” § Fox News—“ Real Journalism, Fair and Balanced” o Ex: 202 Olympic logo § “borrowing” “being inspired by…” = infringement • Fair Use o Defense to copyright infringement o Comparative advertising o Fair criticism § Parody—imitates the style of something for comic effect or criticism § Must not just copy, but transform original work § Guiding idea: people must be able to comment on and criticize ideas o Educators and researchers exception o Four Factors to Consider § The purpose of the new message (for criticism, ridicule, parody, comic effect, etc) § The nature of the copyrighted work (the more creative the less you can use) § The amount of the copyrighted work used § The effect on the value of the copyrighted work o Ex: comparative advertising § Smart Price ad for couch v Ashley Furniture ad for couch • Legal speech protected because it serves public —helps them make decisions • Ashley Furniture lost o Ex: 1989 2 Live Crew § Created a parody of Roy Orbinson’s “Oh, Pretty Woman” song § Borrowed words from the first line of the song and musical tag only § “Oh, hairy woman, you better shave that stuff….” § Work transformative and borrowed small portion § Zep won o Ex: Annie Leibovitz sued Paramount à paramount won, comic effect o Ex: Cover illustrator (The New Yorker) sued Columbia Pictures à New Yorker won o Ex: used the style of Dr. Seuss to tell O.J. Simpson trial story § Cat in the Hat v. Cat not in the Hat à didn’t utterly transform; they mimicking but not to make fun of it/characters/dr. seus —it just a copy of style and characters-> cat in the Hat won Part 5—Newsgathering rights • News gathering rights —news is an essential element of a healthy democracy à need to have competing ideasà best go to the top o Shield Laws (state level) § Reporters do not have reveal anonymous sources § Judges, however, can compel reporters to reveal their sources if they prove a compelling need (greater good) o Sunshine Laws (state level) § Reporters have access to legislative public meetings o The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) § Requires federal agencies to list all their documen ts and provide them to news agencies on request o Ex: Judith Miller and Valerie Plame’s husband § Feb 2002, Joseph Wilson travels to Niger to see if Saddam Hussein bought uranium to develop WMD § He concluded: “it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place” § 6 months later…”Threats and Responses: the Iraqis; U.S. says Hussein intensifies quest for a-bomb parts” by Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller Setp 8 2002 • “More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarkedon a worldwidehunt for materialsto make an atomicbomb,Bush administration officials said today.Inthe last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousandsof specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intendedas componentsof centrifugesto enrichuranium.American officials said severaleffortstoarrangetheshipmentofthealuminum tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing thesensitivityoftheintelligence,wherethey camefromorhowtheywerestopped.The diameter,thicknessand othertechnical specificationsof the aluminum tubes had persuadedAmerican intelligence expertsthat they were meant for Iraq's nuclear program, officials said, and that the latest attempt to ship the material had taken place in recent months.”— NYT § 4 months later… Aluminum tubes become a prop for Bush administration’s case for war with Iraq and in another story Judith Miller wrote that Iraq had mobile weapons labs in trailers § President George Bush’s State of the Union Address—Jan. 28, 2003 • U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents… • From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq…had several mobile biological weapons labs • The British govt has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. • Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production § 2 months later…U.S. led coalition invades Iraq March 20, 2003 § 4 months later…”What I Didn’t Find in Africa”—NYT by Joseph Wilson (July 6, 2003) • “Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related t o Iraq’s nuclear weapons program as twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat § 8 days later…”Mission to Niger” by Robert Novak, the Washington Post (July 14, 2003) • “Wilson’s report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenent ever saw it. Certainly President Bush did not, before his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases to the British govt. Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. “I will not answer any question about my wife” Wilson told me” § A War on Wilson? By Matthew Cooper, Massimo Calabresi and John F. Dickerson • Has the Bush Administration decla red war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact fiding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in Africa uranium? Perhaps Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson raised the Administration's ire with an op-ed piece in The New York Times on July 6 saying that the Administration had "twisted" intelligence to "exaggerate" the Iraqi threat. Since then Administration officials have taken public and private whacks at Wilson, charging that his 2002 report, made at the behest of U.S. intelligence, was faulty and that his mission was a scheme….. and contended that Wilson's report on an alleged Iraqi effort to purchase uranium from Niger, far from underminingthe president'sclaim in his State of the Union address that Iraq sought uranium in Africa, as Wilson had said, actually strengthenedit. And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitorsthe proliferationof weaponsof mass destruction.–Time Magazine, July 17, 2003 § The Outcome • NYT’s admittedthat28 storiesaboutIraqleadingup to the invasionof Iraqwere inaccurate • 10 were writtenby JudithMiller; she resigned • afterservingtime,Miller testifiesfor the federalgrandjurythatLewis Libby,Dick Cheney’sChief of Staff,toldher the name • She said she toldJill Abrahamsonabouther conversation;Abrahamsondeniedthis • Jury did not find Miller credible § ShieldLaws • Federalgovt does not have a shildloaw • Federalinvestigationin 2005 of a CIA leakof the name of a CIA operative • JudithMiller, NYT reporter,and Mathew Cooper,Time magazinereporter • JudithMiller jailedfor threemonths • Cooperreleasedhis notesand releasedfrom pledgeby source  


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.