Tag: #UPDiliman

constitutional law, media law

New York Times vs. US (the “Pentagon Papers Case”)

For additional background material on the facts of the case, here is a documentary entitled  “The Pentagon Papers”, used here non-commercially for academic purposes. This is followed by excerpts of the case below (after the video, please scroll down)

CASE:Per Curiam Opinionxxxthe United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.”xxx
“Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, Near v. Minnesota, xxx. The Government “thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.” xxx The District Court xxx in the New York Times case, and the District Court xxx and Court of Appeals xxx in the Washington Post case, held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.xxxThe judgment of the Court of Appeals (in Washington Post) is affirmed xxx Court of Appeals (in New York Times) is reversed xxx So ordered.
J. Black with whom J. Douglas joins, concurring.”xxx(E)very moment’s continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment   xxx

    “When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms. They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge. Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment in three parts, two of which are set out below, and one of which proclaimed: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments, and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”
xxx Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.xxx
The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do.xxx
The Solicitor General has carefully and emphatically stated: “Now, Mr. Justice (Black), your construction of . . . (the First Amendment) is well known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that “no law” does not mean “no law,” and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true. . .(T)here are other parts of the Constitution that grant powers and responsibilities to the Executive, and . . the First Amendment was not intended to make it impossible for the Executive to function or to protect the security of the United States.xxx
And the Government argues in its brief that, in spite of the First Amendment,”[t]he authority of the Executive Department to protect the nation against publication of information whose disclosure would endanger the national security stems from two interrelated sources: the constitutional power of the President over the conduct of foreign affairs and his authority as Commander-in-Chief.”xxx
In other words, we are asked to hold that, despite the First Amendment’s emphatic command, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Judiciary can make laws enjoining publication of current news and abridging freedom of the press in the name of “national security.” The Government does not even attempt to rely on any act of Congress. Instead, it makes the bold and dangerously far-reaching contention that the courts should take it upon themselves to “make” a law abridging freedom of the press in the name of equity, presidential power and national security, even when the representatives of the people in Congress have adhered to the command of the First Amendment and refused to make such a law.xxx To find that the President has “inherent power” to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make “secure.” No one can read the history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time.
The word “security” is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic. xxx
J. Douglas, with whom J. Black joins, concurring:xxx Congress has been faithful to the command of the First Amendment in this area. xxxSo any power that the Government possesses must come from its “inherent power.”xxx The power to wage war is “the power to wage war successfully.” See Hirabayashi v. United Statesxxx. But the war power stems from a declaration of war. The Constitution xxx gives Congress, not the President, power “(t)o declare War.” Nowhere are presidential wars authorized.
The Government says that it has inherent powers to go into court and obtain an injunction to protect the national interest, which, in this case, is alleged to be national security.
Near v. Minnesota, xxx, repudiated that expansive doctrine in no uncertain terms.xxx
Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic, perpetuating bureaucratic errors. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. On public questions, there should be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

messages

Reporting on Surveys

(we just used this for class discussion because the presenters did not have any material and it was faster to post in the net than to produce slides, don’t mind me) photobyPick

(photo by pick)

Sept. 22, 2015

ABS-CBN: “Roxas overtakes Binay in SWS survey; VP unfazed…Vice President Jejomar Binay is unfazed by the latest Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey which showed Mar Roxas overtaking him in presidential preferences….Binay said his 35% rating is not bad at all. ..”

GMA7 News: ‘Poe still leads, as Roxas overtakes Binay for 2nd in latest SWS poll…Senator Grace Poe remains the top choice… for the 2016 presidential elections even as … Mar Roxas of the Liberal Party leapfrogged Vice President Jejomar Binay for second, according to the latest report by the Social Weather Stations… Poe’s rating rose to 47% in the poll conducted from September 2 to 5, five points better than her second quarter result…Roxas, meanwhile, surged to second with 39%…Binay slipped to third with 35%…A total of 1,200 respondents were asked to give three names of people they see as “good leaders to succeed” Aquino in next year’s elections…The margin of error for the survey is plus-minus three percentage points for the national percentage and plus-minus six percentage points each for Metro Manila, Balance Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.”

Philippine Star: Sen. Grace Poe remains the top presidential bet for the 2016 national elections while Interior Secretary Mar Roxas overtook Vice President Jejomar Binay for second place, according to the latest Social Weather Stations survey released late Sunday…Poe’s rating surged to 47%…Roxas…takes second place at 39%…Meanwhile Binay slid to 3rd place with 35%…”

Students' reviews, The News Media

The 1st Regular Media Monitor or bonus monitor can be posted here #universityofthephilippines #UPDiliman

The 1st regular media monitor or 1st bonus can be posted here (Fair, Foolish, or in a Fix: good practice, violation, or dilemma), with deadline on Tuesday Feb. 2 at 12 noon.
Instructions have been given in class. (As stated before: Students may use pseudonyms or pen names, and conceal their faces, and may also use their own platforms and simply paste the links in the comments section. (If pseudonymous, pls provide the department assistant with your pen name). Pls use the comments section of this post. As stated, the media monitor commentary may either by typed as text in the comments section or as a link leading to the post in the platform of the classmember/ post author. Pls type in the first line whether the post is a regular media monitor [1st Regular Media Monitor) or a bonus post (1st Bonus Post) to aid the checker in locating and categorizing each box. Tnx).

     Baseless rants will not merit any points – the commentary should use, cite, and quote the pertinent provisions of the 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics as taken up in class this week. Failure to provide the pertinent provision will result in a score of zero. The SPJ provisions have been provided in the handouts distributed in class this week. They were also discussed in powerpoint in class. For students who are completely incapable of reading the handouts given to them, the provisions taken up in class are embedded below, before the end of this post, in blue font.
As a heads-up, the following are the first two bonuses that can be posted in lieu of a regular media monitor [as stated, only one media monitor per week (which can either be a regular media monitor or a bonus post) is allowed to avoid cramming and jamming up of posts: the purpose of observing the weekly media monitor is to build the daily habit of reading/ viewing media content with discernment).
On occasion of the Chinese New Year on Feb. 8 and Valentines Day on the 14th, the following are the first two bonuses:
1st bonus post: Advertorials (the holidays are always commercialized: the media will churn out ads and promos disguised as news features). Choose from any of the following 2014 SPJ Code of Ethics provisions (these provisions will be taken up next week, this bonus can be posted at any time in lieu of a regular media monitor as long as only one media monitor per week is posted. Students who think/ feel they can tackle this in advance can do so, and post it as  their bonus here in the first media monitor. Again, to repeat:  the bonus post can be submitted at any time as long as only one media monitor per week is posted.)
For the 1st Bonus on Advertorials, choose from any of these provisions: “ACT INDEPENDENTLY
“ The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public
Journalists should:
– Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
– Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.
– Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.
– Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
– Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.” (2014 SPJ)

      To give students additional advance notice, the second bonus will be on news feature reports that show “superstitious and pseudo-scientific beliefs and practices, such as supernatural powers, foretelling of the future, astrology, phrenology, palm-reading, numerology, mind-reading, hypnotism, faith healing or similar subjects”.

      These abound in the run-up to the Chinese New Year, hence, the advance notice.

     Here are the pertinent provisions of the KBP Broadcast Code: “Art. 13 SUPERSTITION AND THE OCCULT: “Sec.1 Programs featuring superstitious and pseudo-scientific beliefs and practices, such as supernatural powers, foretelling of the future, astrology, phrenology, palm-reading, numerology, mind-reading, hypnotism, faith healing or similar subjects shall be careful not to induce belief in them. Care shall be taken to prevent the exploitation of people who may be easily swayed by such superstitious and pseudo-scientific beliefs and practices.
“Sec.2.Programs or program materials that promote or encourage occult practices, black magic, witchcraft, and similar activities are prohibited.” (KBP Broadcast Code)
                                        ♣   ♣   ♣

For the first regular media monitor: (2014 SPJ): “SEEK TRUTH AND REPORT IT
“Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
– Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
– Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
– Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
– Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
– Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
– Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
– Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
– Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
– Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
– Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
– Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
– Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
– Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
– Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
– Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
– Label advocacy and commentary.
– Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
– Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
“MINIMIZE HARM
“Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
– Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
– Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
– Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
– Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
– Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do. xxx (2014 SPJ)