Advanced knowledge and planning is very important in court closure cases. Try to anticipate a closure. Preventing closure may be easier than convincing a judge to reopen a closed hearing. Find out whether any party in the case has filed or plans to file a closure motion. If you are an independent reporter, call the Reporters Committee for help. But if a judge unexpectedly orders you to leave a hearing that to that point had been public, you may have to take immediate action.
If you learn that a secret court proceeding is in progress or has already been held, try to determine:. If you decide to seek access to the proceeding, or to a transcript if the proceeding has concluded, the simplest and most direct approach is to request a meeting with the judge. Pointing out the procedural requirements mandated by the U. Supreme Court may be sufficient to convince the judge to reconsider the closure. In addition to requesting access to future proceedings, you should ask the judge to make available transcripts of past proceedings and copies of any documents that may have been introduced as evidence.
Be prepared to pay for it. On the other hand, if the judge has decided to go forward in secrecy, you will need assistance from a lawyer. Supreme Court and other courts have said that the media may intervene in a criminal or civil case for the limited purpose of asserting their First Amendment rights. In addition to filing a motion to intervene, your lawyer might file a motion seeking a stay of further proceedings in the underlying case until the access issue is resolved.
If the judge denies the motion to intervene or, after hearing argument, continues holding closed proceedings, you may want to consider an appeal. A lawyer will be able to advise you on the best method of obtaining expeditious review of the decision. Contact the Reporters Committee if you or your news organization does not have an attorney. News events often occur in public forums — property that is publicly owned and open to the general public, such as city parks or sidewalks where demonstrations take place.
Private property generally presents more difficult access problems than public property. In most situations, the property owner cannot be forced to allow a reporter to cover an event or interview an individual on the premises.
Some states treat the latter as a type of public forum. Most courts have ruled that the First Amendment provides journalists no greater right of access to property than that enjoyed by the public. Therefore, when an event occurs on nonpublic forum public property or private property, reporters may not have the right to enter if the general public is not usually allowed in.
Generally, a court contemplating denying access to nonpublic forum public property must weigh the public interest in obtaining information against competing interests. Although state and local governments may not limit or deny the public or the media access to public forums, they may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on activities taking place on public property.
For example, a city government reasonably could grant a parade permit that restricted a group from marching through the business section of town at rush hour. But these restrictions must be content neutral, be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Government agencies generally succeed in limiting media access to nonpublic forum public property where they showed that newsgathering would interfere with the normal operation of facilities.
In addition, new security measures since September 11, , often require background checks and security screening of reporters covering public facilities such as state capitols and city halls. The media have a right of access to report on prisons in general.
Supreme Court to rule repeatedly that the media do not have a right to insist on interviewing specific inmates. But just as the media do not have rights greater than the general public, they cannot be denied access that is granted to the general public. If prisoners are allowed to add whomever they choose to their visitor lists, for example, prisons cannot stop them from including members of the news media on those lists.
They may, however, forbid journalists to use cameras, recording devices and writing implements if other visitors are not allowed to use them. The Supreme Court decisions giving prisons discretion to deny media interviews arose in situations where the general public, including the media, were permitted to visit prisons to witness the operation of the facility and where the prisoners had the right to talk to family members or friends about the conditions in the prison.
If this level of access to prisoners is curtailed, the balancing tests could be applied differently. The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners have First Amendment rights that must be taken into account. Even though courts have rejected a First Amendment right to interview specific prisoners, most states have statutes or prison rules allowing for some type of access. They usually grant the warden or other prison official authority to deny interview requests under specific circumstances.
For example, some of these rules permit only journalists employed fulltime by news organizations to conduct interviews. Federal prison rules are fairly restrictive, although many journalists have been able to schedule interviews with particular prisoners.
However, a federal statute bars interviews with federal death-row inmates. Some states have adopted strict policies limiting or barring special interviews with prisoners. California decided to ban most face-to-face interviews with specific prisoners in , and a number of other states placed additional limits on interviews soon after.
Local prison rules, policies or customs may not be consistent with the state law. Ask the official who denied the request for specific reasons for the denial under the regulation. Journalists may be able to appeal denials within the state prison system.
Procedures should be spelled out in the regulations. Arbitrary, discriminatory or unjustified denials are more likely to be overturned by a court. Executions are undeniably newsworthy events and present another access problem for journalists.
A majority of states that allow capital punishment have statutes that specify how many witnesses may attend executions, who may select witnesses and whether reporters must be or may be included. However, one federal appellate court has held that there is no First Amendment right to witness executions.
No states allow the use of photographic or recording equipment at executions. Rules governing federal executions allow limited access to prisoners during the week before their execution. At the execution itself, media access is left to the discretion of the warden, but the number of media representatives may not exceed Law enforcement investigators often restrict media access to crime scenes.
Journalists who defy their orders may be charged with interference, disorderly conduct or criminal trespass. If convicted, they risk fines or imprisonment. Journalists who obey police orders and withdraw from the scene later may file complaints or even lawsuits against the police department, but the opportunities to cover those newsworthy events will have passed. Some police departments and media organizations have devised written guidelines outlining rules for media access to crime scenes and procedures for issuing press passes for access to nonpublic areas or emergency scenes.
Police departments with established press-pass systems are not allowed to decide arbitrarily who will receive passes and who will not. If a department denies a press pass, it must give the reporter reasons for the denial and a chance to appeal.
In recent years, some reporters have been swept up in mass arrests during protests. Other reporters and photographers have been injured or fined while covering protests. Photojournalists are particularly susceptible to arrest.
In the past when a journalist was arrested at a news scene, quick-thinking editors and media lawyers often were able to get the charges dismissed. Police, prosecutors and judges were willing to recognize they were only doing their jobs. Here are some common-sense tips that the Reporters Committee has gathered over the years from media and criminal defense lawyers that may help prevent an arrest, or at least get you out of jail faster.
Journalists also may have problems gaining access to cover events in public buildings, including public auditoriums and sports arenas that have been leased for nongovernmental functions. When municipally owned property is operated in a commercial rather than governmental capacity, the media have no special right of access beyond that afforded to the general public. For example, when the city of Hartford, Conn. The judge said that a private body leasing a government facility had the same constitutional obligations as the government.
Standards governing access to public school buildings differ by state. Generally, public school property is treated as nonpublic forum public property, and regulations that restrict access but are designed to minimize interference with normal school activities would be constitutionally permissible.
No state laws bar the media from school grounds outright, but individual school districts may have adopted regulations limiting access to school property.
Occasionally, reporters covering events on school property have been arrested for trespassing. Some districts have adopted more liberal policies that allow reporters access as long as they do not disrupt educational activities.
Several states have exit-polling laws that prohibit reporters from interviewing voters within specified distances of voting places. But a federal court found the Washington state exit-polling law unconstitutional because it had been passed specifically to prevent the media from projecting the outcome of elections.
A Nevada federal court granted media a permanent injunction against a Nevada statute that banned exit polling within feet of polling places on election days, finding the law unconstitutional. Reporters usually will need permission of the property owner or public officials before entering private property, even to cover a news event such as a demonstration, a natural disaster, an accident or a criminal investigation.
Whether you have to ask for permission depends largely on court decisions in your state. CBS News settled a federal civil rights claim in February brought after a network camera crew accompanied a Secret Service agent on a raid in a private apartment. An appellate court, finding that the agent could not reasonably believe he had the right to authorize the crew to accompany him, let the case against the agent continue.
The ruling was appealed to the U. On remand, the Court of Appeals held in November that although federal agents violated the Fourth Amendment by permitting media to accompany them during the search, agents were entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense, because the right was not clearly established at the time of the search.
Members of media, however, were not entitled to assert that defense. CNN then settled the case with the ranchers in May In , the Biography Channel and its parent company faced federal lawsuits over alleged civil rights violations that occur during police ride-along programs. In one of the cases, a U. Some occupants of private property may give consent, but their permission may be inadequate. A tenant may be able to give consent only to enter the portion of the property rented, not the entire building.
In situations where reporters have been expressly forbidden access to private property, courts have ruled that the First Amendment does not grant immunity from arrest and prosecution to reporters who commit illegal acts while gathering news. Private property that is open to the public, such as shopping malls, may be treated the same as public forums.
In , the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that shopping malls have taken the place of downtown districts as areas for free-speech activities.
The court allowed leafleting by activists, but ruled that private property owners may impose restrictions on the time, place and manner of protests. At least two state high courts have ruled that there is no constitutional right of access to shopping malls. Though the opportunity to gather news may already have passed, journalists may be able to sue the official denying access in civil court for violating their First Amendment rights.
These civil rights claims, brought under federal law 42 U. Bringing a civil suit positions a journalist as a plaintiff rather than as a criminal defendant who disobeyed official instructions to stay away from a crime scene or out of a courtroom. The right to sue a federal official for civil rights violations — called a Bivens action — has been implied from the Constitution itself.
In addition to historical access, the importance of newsgathering is balanced against the reason access has been denied. A newspaper publisher brought a successful Section action against off-duty sheriff deputies who attempted to buy all copies of an election-day newspaper criticizing their favorite candidates.
Reporters gain useful insights into government operations at the local, state and federal level by examining government records or attending government meetings. The working documents and proceedings of an agency can, for example, indicate how the school board will implement budget cuts, why the state highway commission abandoned plans to run a new highway along a particular route, or what a federal task force discovered about the mortality rate in a community near an abandoned toxic waste site.
The laws are amended regularly and, in recent years, there has been an effort to address access to electronic records in many jurisdictions. Changes in agency regulations and court rules also are occurring because so many records are now maintained in electronic format. OGIS was created to help resolve FOIA disputes between requesters and government agencies by providing free, non-binding dispute resolution services. Some states permit electronic meetings so long as public access to the meetings is assured.
Open records and meetings laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Supreme Court has recognized a First Amendment right of access to government records in limited situations and a few states have enshrined a right of access in their state constitutions, statutes and the common law are more frequently invoked to create a presumption of openness in government records.
The jurisdiction of the agency determines which freedom of information law applies. State open records laws cover most state agencies. In some states, nongovernmental entities that receive public funds or perform a governmental function also are subject to the disclosure laws. Executive branch agencies of the federal government are covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act. No government — state or federal — maintains a centralized system of access to information, so you must direct your requests to the agency in possession of the documents you seek.
Although a growing number of states and counties have contracted with private companies to provide electronic access to records, the agency or local government generally remains responsible for complying with access laws. Most open records laws are based on the presumption that everything is public, unless specifically exempted. Some states specify certain categories of information that always are public.
In most states, only a few specifically designated types of records are required to be kept secret. The number and kinds of exemptions vary from state to state, but state and federal laws usually have exemptions for:. Other common exceptions at the state level cover information relating to government acquisition of real estate, library circulation records, civil service examinations and answer keys, and student records.
Federal law includes additional exemptions for information relating to banking or financial institutions, and oil and gas wells. Under the federal and all state laws, legislatures may enact specific statutes exempting additional classes of documents from public access laws.
HIPAA protects personal health information kept by insurance companies and medical providers. It was initially designed to protect student grades and school disciplinary records but is often interpreted broadly by educational institutions to apply to a variety of records that in some way may refer to a student. In many states, citizens may simply ask to inspect and copy records during regular business hours. In others, and in federal agencies, requesters must put their requests in writing.
Although many states will honor oral requests, making your request in writing is often the only way to trigger your statutory rights. Whether your request is oral or written, be sure to cite to the relevant open records law. This helps the custodian of the record who processes your request to better understand what you want and give your request serious consideration.
You may have to pay for the copies of records you receive. A deposit also may be required before the records custodian will process a large request. Some states allow agencies to charge for the time it takes their employees to locate the documents, in addition to the actual copying costs.
Under the federal law and some state laws, reporters are entitled to partial or full fee waivers, especially if their requests will directly benefit the public. The federal law entitles reporters to an automatic waiver of all search fees and the first pages of copying fees.
Ask for the waiver in the initial records request and list your reporting credentials to document your eligibility for the waiver. Although many statutes establish fee schedules that charge commercial requesters a higher fee, newsgathering generally is not considered to be a commercial use of the information. If your request is denied, insist that the agency official cite the specific statutory exemption justifying the withholding.
Most states require agencies to separate exempt information from non-exempt material. Therefore, you may get a document in which certain information has been blacked out. Once again, agencies must justify these deletions by referring to specific exceptions in the public records law or to some other statute.
If the agency offers to release a portion of the requested information, you may accept partial access and resolve the remaining issues subsequently. The physical form of the record is generally not an issue; computerized data should be accessible as well as paper records. If the document exists in electronic form, the custodian usually is also required to make it available to the requester in the electronic format in which it is maintained.
Response times vary by jurisdiction. Federal agencies have 20 days in which to respond to a records request. In practice, however, this deadline is almost never met. Under the amendments to FOIA, agencies that do not respond to a request within 20 days cannot assess search fees nor can they assess duplication fees to members of the news media. The day time limit can be extended in some circumstances such as when the agency requests more information from the requester, if the agency needs clarification on the request or the request is particularly voluminous.
In a few states and under the federal law, if your initial request is denied, you must appeal to a higher official within the agency. In other states you must appeal to a special FOI appeals commission.
Under federal law, OGIS is best utilized after a requester has exhausted all remedies under an administrative appeal. In all states and at the federal level, you also have the right to file a lawsuit in court to enforce your rights to obtain government information. These laws do not necessarily ensure that members of the public will be allowed to address the agency, but they do guarantee that the public and the media can attend the meetings. The ability to record a meeting, either through audio or visual recording has generally been viewed as implicit in sunshine laws if not explicitly written into the state law.
For example, Utah and Oklahoma statutorily permit the recording of meetings. At the federal level, these laws cover only agencies with collegial, multi-member leadership such as commissions and federal advisory committees. State laws apply to a variety of commissions, boards and councils. Generally, sunshine laws guarantee public access to meetings only when a quorum of a group meets to discuss public business.
Chance social or ceremonial gatherings of agency officials usually do not fall within the scope of these laws. However, merely having food at a meeting does not make it a social gathering if the agency is meeting to discuss public issues and make decisions. Some states have addressed the issue of whether electronic communications would constitute a meeting subject to open meetings laws mandates. For example, using e-mail or telephone conversations to circumvent state open meetings laws is a violation of the law in Alabama and Louisiana.
Utah, Florida and Texas are among those additional states that have established legal procedures and limitations on when and how electronic meetings can occur. Sunshine laws usually require agencies to give advance notice of all meetings, even emergency ones, and to publish or post agendas in advance, listing items to be discussed. However, agencies usually must refrain from formal action unless in public session. The kinds of meetings the agencies may close vary somewhat from state to state.
Most — but not all — laws permit them to conduct the following discussions in secret:. Meetings of specialized agencies frequently are closed under special legislation.
For instance, meetings of parole boards often are not public. Open meetings statutes usually specify the procedures agency officials must follow to close a meeting. In some states, votes to close meetings must take place in open session. In others, simply giving notice of the intent and reasons for holding a closed meeting is sufficient.
As under freedom of information laws, the public and media may seek redress in court for violations of open meeting laws. In some states, actions taken in violation of the open meetings law are nullified, requiring the agency to take the action again in an open meeting. In other states, government officials may be liable for criminal or civil fines, or recall, for deliberate violations. This discussion provides only a brief outline of these statutes. If you need further assistance concerning the state or federal law, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press will help you without charge.
The Reporters Committee has also compiled a comprehensive guide to open meetings and records laws in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including analysis of the statutes and cases interpreting them.
The Open Government Guide is available as a compendium of guides to all states or individually by state. It also is available at www. In these cases, the radio announcer, the weekly editor and the website operator infringed the rights of the copyright owners of the original works and may be liable for damages. The Copyright Law gives copyright protection to creative works—such as the newspaper article, magazine article and freelance article in the above examples—at the moment of their creation.
If someone uses a copyrighted work without permission, as the radio announcer, weekly newspaper editor and magazine publisher have, the copyright owner can sue for copyright infringement. It simply must owe its origin to a particular author. The law also states that a fact is not an original work of authorship. Facts owe their origin to the thing or person that makes them happen. For example, if a reporter wrote a newspaper article about a building fire, she could not copyright the facts about the fire because those facts do not owe their origin to her.
Facts discovered through research, no matter how new and amazing, also do not owe their origin to the researcher. However, the ways facts are recorded—style, choice and arrangement of words—are copyrightable.
For example, although an author could not copyright an idea for a new foreign policy strategy, she could copyright her expression of that idea in a newspaper article. For example, an article about a federal law that includes quotations and facts from the Congressional Record would be copyrightable if the new arrangement of this pre-existing material constituted an original work of authorship. A copyrightable work must be produced in a format that can be perceived, reproduced and communicated over time.
Newspapers, magazines, photographs and most other forms of media, including the Internet, easily satisfy these criteria. Radio and television news programs are recorded on paper, tape or in digital form, and thus are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. For example, the U. The Copyright Term Extension Act extended the duration of the copyright period for 20 years for works protected under copyright on or after Oct.
If the work is made for hire, or is an anonymous or pseudonymous work, the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or years from creation, whichever is shorter.
The new legislation also restored copyright protection for foreign artists and authors who have copyrights in their home countries, but whose copyright had lapsed in the United States. In Eldred v. Ashcroft , a group of publishers who used copyrighted works that had moved into the public domain questioned the constitutionality of the CTEA.
The DMCA made several changes to copyright law, especially in the areas of digital technology. However, the federal tax returns of nonprofit organizations are available for public inspection. These returns, known as form returns, must be filed by organizations ranging from community charities to trade groups to hospitals to large co-operative industries. In addition, the IRS sometimes makes agreements with certain classes of taxpayers identifying what will be considered taxable income.
Those agreements are considered public record, although the returns of for-profit businesses covered by the agreements are not. Organizations such as Tax Analysts and the Bureau of National Affairs have argued against such changes. SPJ has assisted them in those efforts. Among its findings: half of the 36 million notices it sends out annually demanding money are wrong; the IRS routinely uses unfair methods in dealing with taxpayers; it is the only agency where the accused is considered guilty until proven innocent.
The article included sample letters to the IRS. To monitor jail operations. Privately-run jails that contract with local governments may not be covered by state law on open records. NOTES: Local jail records can illustrate stories on over-crowding, the demographics of jail populations, trends about crimes, or concerns about the separation of adults and children or men and women. As it turns out this doctor is personal friends with the director of the Dallas County Health Department.
The frequency and numbers of executions are easily available through state corrections departments and watchdog groups. The availability of state policies and procedures on capital punishment varies by state. Some specifics on procedures may be considered confidential for security reasons. NOTES: In , SPJ compiled a state list including the District of Columbia and the federal prison system of state policies regarding prisons and prisoners, including the availability of capital punishment information.
The information is available online at www. In March they revealed prosecutors gave extraordinary privileges to the key informant and witness against the convicted gang members. Some states specifically exempt collective bargaining information from open records and meetings laws. However, others may allow the public to observe the collective bargaining deliberations of public entities such as school boards, city councils or county commissions.
Deliberations and decisions by state legislatures on public employee pay scales should be public. NOTES: In the private sector, neither management nor labor has any obligation to make public its proposals for collective bargaining, even if one side or the other chooses to do so.
However, since public entities spend public money in collective bargaining agreements, there is rationale that their proposals should be public, even if labor chooses not to make its proposals public. This may include tapes of incoming calls to centers. Investigative reports by police generally are considered confidential, at least while cases are considered active. In some cases, law enforcement may try to seal closed case files because of information contained in them.
Journalists should actively pursue access to all the records they are entitled to see under state law. Journalists also should make efforts to see case files that have been sealed after the case is closed. The investigation tracked the flow of money into the Legislature and to its membership over the course of an entire legislative session, and demonstrated in detail the extent to which money spent by special interest groups results in staggering returns on their investments, in the form of tax breaks and special interest legislation which the public unwittingly subsidizes.
To monitor the activities and expenditures of local government entities. To monitor activities of the community over which local government has licensing or regulatory authority. Records of local government expenses, decisions and activities also should be available unless specifically exempted from open records laws. City records on licenses and regulatory activities also should be open.
These kinds of policies can be used to circumvent laws on public participation. Local government bodies should be required to give advance notice of meeting times and agendas if public comment is to be taken or decisions are to be made. Decisions made in violation of open meetings laws should be challenged. For instance, a hospital might offer the condition and general extent of injuries of a person injured in an automobile crash.
Similarly, medical personnel might share general information about people injured or sickened during an emergency or disease outbreak.
In addition, the health of public figures can be newsworthy. Americans are told routinely about the health of the President and Vice-President. Other government leaders or celebrities may share information about their health voluntarily or authorize the release of information. NOTES: Without the prior notice of meetings, the publication of agendas and the existence of meeting minutes, it is doubtful the public could have meaningful participation in government.
Only insiders with connections to public officials would know what was happening. Journalists also would have a harder time representing the public. Because Municipal bonds are relatively unregulated, many cities lost millions of dollars. Each state should have an agency that oversees the standards of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. Reports of inspections should be public, although information on personnel and patients may be considered confidential.
NOTES: Alleged abuses or neglect at nursing homes have been subjects of investigative news stories for decades. While some of these stories have been reported through the use of undercover surveillance techniques, publicly available inspection records can play an important role in exposing or confirming alleged problems.
State laws may allow closures of meetings to protect personal privacy, litigation strategy or collective bargaining strategy, for example. NOTES: State codes are notorious for including exemptions to open meetings laws in sections unconnected with the main law. NOTES: Just as with open meetings laws, state codes are notorious for including exemptions to open records laws in sections unconnected with the main law.
In every case, state and local agencies have not fared well. One-third of the agencies failed to produce public records. However, detailed information in personnel records generally is considered confidential unless the person waives the right of privacy.
For instance, in , after the federal DPPA took effect, the Montana Department of Justice provided the media with a drivers license photo of Ted Kaczinski after his arrest for the Unabomber crimes. The story reveals that police officers — often in uniform — are hired by private developments to enforce their rules on private parking, speeding, trespassing, loitering, etc. IRE Story File Some states severely restrict contact between journalists and prisoners in the name of security or to prevent prisoners from becoming media celebrities.
Access to inmate information in federal prisons is largely restricted on grounds of inmate privacy. A troubling trend in recent years has been the increase in privately-run, for-profit prisons. Access to facilities and inmates at private prisons can be virtually impossible for journalists. Information from that survey can be found on the SPJ Web site at www.
The investigation found that whites comprise a majority of drug users, but the majority of those arrested are black. A court order opened probation reports regarding drug offenders that previously had been closed. It may take painstaking research to gain a complete picture of privacy laws at a particular level of government. Legislative bodies at all levels have tried to expand privacy protections for Americans by exempting government records from inspection.
In addition, executive branch agencies have extended privacy protection in new areas by administrative rule or by executive order. Defendants and defense attorneys are less likely to benefit from these relations of dependency. A guilty criminal defendant has no interest in sharing details of a crime, of course, and innocent defendants have no details to offer.
Even if defendants do have valuable information, they are unlikely to have valuable information on a regular basis for years to come, the way police and judicial officers do. Defense attorneys are a bit more likely to be valuable sources in the future, but not nearly as likely as prosecutors. There is much more crime in the world than there is coverage of it, so most defense attorneys most times will not be defending newsworthy clients.
But all newsworthy prosecutions are performed by a handful of offices, from city attorneys to federal prosecutors. Given a choice between developing close, mutually rewarding relationships with defendants or prosecutors, a working reporter knows where his or her professional future is most safely insured.
Robert Shapiro, a prominent defense attorney and member of O. Simpson's "Dream Team" noted that "[t]he defense lawyer who has never dealt with the press, or has no pre-existing relationship with a particular reporter, is at a severe disadvantage. In order to overcome this, the lawyer must cultivate a line of communication with the reporter so the client's point of view can be expressed in the most favorable way" p.
One effect of crime coverage on the judicial process that has received considerable research attention is the influence of pretrial publicity on jurors. Partly due to the pattern of dependency relations described above, it has been noted that most coverage of crime is detrimental to the defendant, including the publication of information inadmissible at trial Imrich, Mullin, and Linz; Dixon and Linz.
Does this bad publicity produce predispositions in jurors one way or the other? A variety of experimental and quasi-experimental research studies have demonstrated consistent support for the hypothesis that at least mild antidefendant bias can be the result of exposure to pretrial publicity Constantini and King; Dexter, Cutler, and Moran; Greene and Wade; Kramer, Kerr, and Carroll; Kerr, Kramer, Carroll, and Alfini; Moran and Cutler; Ogloff and Vidmar; Otto, Penrod, and Dexter.
Eliciting emotion on camera vi. Going live vii. Ending the interview viii. Thank the Victim ix. Provide contact information for yourself or your editor. Reporters are rushing to meet deadlines and struggling to get the facts of a story that may still be unfolding. Victims are often still in shock, unaware of the pitfalls of speaking and staying silent. Unless journalists exercise special care, the situation can become the proverbial recipe for disaster. Reporters need to understand the specific challenges that victims face in being the subject of an Act I story.
While individuals vary in their response to trauma, only a handful of victims are likely to be both composed enough and eager to speak to the media immediately after being victimized. Victims often need time to recover from the initial shock of what has happened to them before they can accurately and fully report the facts and their feelings about them to others.
0コメント