A. A New News Media

Welcome to a new way to get your news in the sporting world.

Our mission:

We hope to reach a niche audience of sports fans in the 18-24 age range. By using new forms of media such as videos and specialized blogs from each of our contributors, we hope to give our an insightful new perspective and analysis that scores and statistics alone cannot provide.

Our Code of Ethics:

1. First and foremost our dedication is to the truth. Without truth in reporting and the information found readers have no reason to trust our site for reliable and up-to-date information. To us getting the story right is more important than getting the story first.

2. Be original. This is not only in the sense of providing our readers with a creative and new perspective on a story, but also in our steadfast rule to NEVER plagiarize or fabricate stories. If there is information perfectly represented by a different source then it must be rightfully cited as such.

3. Write unbiasedly. News stories should be reported and written with the intention to inform the public, not to sway them. Unless the author is writing an oped piece or a column, our site's job is to give the facts and let the reader make their own judgements from the information provided.

4. Don't try to be immortal. As we've learned from our friend Tiger Woods, everyone makes mistakes. In the case that misleading or incorrect information is missed by our editors and published, we will take full accountability for any and all mistakes and have them corrected in a timely and thorough fashion. Along the same lines, we know that our audience and the people we report on are human as well. Invasions of privacy that cross the boundaries of moral ethics will not be tolerated.

* Note: Many of the items on our code of ethics have been adopted from the Society of Professional Journalists. Their code of ethics has been time tested and approved by thousands of respected journalists as a set of guidelines to not only write by, but to live by. Since most of their code represented general ideas, this news site added a more detailed description of what our specific perspective was on their universal principles. Truth and originality are cornerstones of most all news organizations, but it was important to our organization to add what the intent of our reporting is as well. With knowledge of our intent, viewers can read with a purpose. Also, in light of the current state of the media, and citizens' lack of trust in news organizations it is important to realize that we will encounter mistakes and will admit to and amend our flaws if one of the aforementioned codes are broken.

Our electronic source policy:

Electronic sources such as social networking website, e-mails, chat-rooms, instant messaging, and blogs should be used sparingly. Additionally, unless open to the public, they should never be used as a primary source of information. If the information is obtain legally, these information from electronic sites can be useful in the newsgathering process and may lead to information that can be considered a primary source. Public Facebook pages and Twitter accounts allow the reporter to locate a more up-to-date list of sources a person may have been in contact with who could not have found by word of mouth. Most electronic sources cannot be fully cited because without knowing the intent or mindset of its author at the time it was written it nearly impossible to know the context of their statements. Often times Facebook messages, instant messages, text messages, and blog posts can be taken out of context and can result in the reporting of misleading, incorrect, or even irrelevant information. In the reporting of the Annie Le murder case, stories that cited her Facebook status updates were irrelevant to the case and used as fluff causing the piece to lose legitimacy as a newsworthy story. Also, getting access to this type of information generally involves a breach of privacy due to the personal nature of the subject matter. It is in no way worth sacrificing ethical reporting, when most of the information found is often meaningless to the backbone of the story.

B. 1) E-board, Should Blair stay?

As a member of the executive board and regional press officer, I firmly advise against having Mr. Jayson Blair as this year's keynote speaker. Although Mr. Blair has made mistakes in his past that any student of journalism can learn from, he has not proved that he himself has learned from. Judging by his website based on his newfound work as a motivational speaker, Mr. Blair seems to have placed the blame for his actions on a mental illness rather than an ethical mistake. Jane Pauley, a respected broadcast journalist, also suffers from bipolar affective disorder, and has not had the illness ever affect the accountability of her work. Additionally, no scientific links have been made between the disorder and the type misleading actions Blair committed. Therefore, his use of his illness for committing his unethical and journalistic faux pas is a scapegoat not to be admired or promoted in a teaching forum such as ours.

The perils of plagiarism, fabrication, and dishonesty would be a story better told by Blair's editors of the New York Times at the time of his falsified publications. Those editors would have a better examination of the case as to their mistakes in not catching his actions, as well as analyzing exactly where he and they went wrong. Even more so they could describe the changes their paper has made to prevent these occurrences in the future. Their futures still involve the world of journalism, where Blair's future does not anymore. He cannot tell how he has learned from his mistakes and improve upon his work if he is no longer in the field he is speaking about.

Although Blair did resign and make a pubic apology, he explained in that apology that he did not think his actions affected the credibility of journalists. To have a person who could first act so unethically as to falsify first hand accounts, people, quotes, and to directly plagiarize from other pieces, and then not take fully responsibility for those dishonest actions, would be a poor example for impressionable journalism students. Based on Blair's new endeavors he has moved on from his dishonorable past, but has not used his experiences to tell young journalists how to prevent finding themselves in such situations. He appears to have forgotten his actions rather than learning from them. Furthermore, to pay for Blair's expenses would imply that our organization sees him as a respectable keynote speaker, when he has done nothing to prove that position would be deserved. For these reason I firmly believe Jayson Blair's invitation to be keynote speaker should be reconsidered.

*Photo by news.softpedia.com

B. 2) Interview Questions

Former Spokane Spokesman-Review editor Steven Smith:

1. After seeing the turmoil the late Mayor Jim West went through after your initial front page coverage of his actions on gay.com and allegations of child molestation, would you have handled the coverage of the case differently regarding what and when you would publish the information you had?

2. Do you feel the way in which you presented the information, especially in a notably anti-gay community, caused unfair treatment of the mayor? Does or did guilt play into whether or not your published allegations would cause harm to Mayor West, his family, and/or his wellbeing?

3. How would you advise new journalists and journalism students to handle scandals such as these and in obtaining information through, what some may consider, untruthful means such as posing as someone you are not on the internet or through a set-up? Do you feel your methods were unethical or an invasion of personal privacy on a public figure in any way?

Former Cincinnati Enquirer editor Larry Beaupre:

1. As an editor, what changes have you made in the fact checking aspect of your paper to prevent reporters from using unlawful means to obtain information for stories?

2. Do you feel it was fair that your paper had to retract your entire 18-page article when there was factual information against Chiquita collected ethically and only pieces of the reporting were obtained illegally?

C. Tiger on the Prowl

From the perspective of a sports news website, Tiger Woods and his scandal must be reported. Woods is the king of today's golf world and the PGA tour, and one of the top five most recognizable world renowned athletes. Seeing as the initial accident report suggested Woods was seriously injured, the incident would be a top story on any news site, not only sports and that is how our news organization would treat the matter. As an up and coming sports news site, page hits are extremely important to increase viewership and advertising. To not report on arguably the world's greatest golfer being in an accident would be damaging to the accountability of a new site. As new information is released, follow-up stories would be necessary since a preliminary report has already been posted.

Although much of the information of available has come from tabloid type sources such as TMZ and the National Enquirer who often pay for their sources, some of the information has been well researched. A link to those sites with that information is all that should be mentioned on a respectable news website. Due to the nature of the information, gossip ridden and often times provided through motivation, using it as a primary information or even as supporting references would be journalistically unethical. If information cannot be readily proven with facts from witnesses or the source themselves, in this case Tiger Woods or his wife, then there is no journalistic reason for reporting it. The only reason for reporting on a renowned person's personal life would be if it affected the public, such as cases like former New Jersey governor James McGreevey's affair with a former aide, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's involvement in a prostitution ring, or former President Clinton's extramarital relationship with Monica Lewinsky. These cases affected the nation because of the positions they held and what their actions meant for those positions, two caused resignations, the other an impeachment hearing. Additionally, both Tiger Woods' affair, or affairs, have none of those prior implications on society. He may have lost the trust of fans, but that has no affect on the wellbeing of the public at large.

If readers are looking for gossip and specific facts of Woods' affair with detailed accounts including texts and voicemails from countless mistresses, then a journalistically based news site is not what they are looking for because “sext messages” are not news. At the most, links to sites citing this evidences can be posted for further reference if the reader chooses to do so. The only aspects of the Woods story that fit the mold of what makes a good news story are the prominence of the figure involved and timeliness. There are currently three political figures with confirmed extramarital affairs receiving less attention than Tiger Woods, but have a greater national impact. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and his Argentinian “business” rendezvous, former Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards and his alleged illegitimate child, and Nevada Senator John Ensign and his campaign staff aide, have all received less press and criticism than a golfer and his socialite.

The information regarding Woods' wife and her family is even more irrelevant than the mistresses' individual detailed accounts of hotel rooms and vacations. However, it is important that with the information regarding new allegations, to also mention Tiger Woods' quotes posted on his website.

From a sports stand point, Tiger Woods “indefinite” hiatus from golf and the PGA tour must be covered fully. Additionally, the covering on-going list of dropped sponsorships tells a better story of how the public feels about the story than reporting on it could. I feel the best and most respectably ethical manner to handle the coverage is to only give the undeniable facts in a news story, and allow for columns to be written regarding and analyzing any implications those facts give to the sporting world, as there are many. It is irrefutable that Woods, once seen as an immortal human on and off the golf course by fans and the sports media alike, has fallen from his golden pedestal. The last insightful literary look into Woods' life came in a profile in Esquire magazine by Charlie Pierce in 1999, when Tiger was just twenty-one. The article demonstrated although he was perfect on the green, he was still just an entitled kid who told racy jokes and always got what he wanted. This portrayal with on-the-record statements that Woods and his father later attempted to retract, marked the end of Tiger's relationship with the media, leaving only marketing and his on the course actions to tell his story from then on. So to some this is the chance to tear Woods down for what one writer predicted twelve years ago and for what Woods attempted to hide since then. In the end, the story will be told whether our site covers it or not, but it is more ethical to take a straightforward and fact-driven approach than resort to reporting gossip with questionable motivations to become a respected and trustworthy news organization.

*Photo by themehybrid.com

D. Are we all journalists now?

Many words in our country's constitution were not clearly defined at the time of its creation. One of those vague terms laid out in the First Amendment is the press. Our founders could not clearly illustrate who the press was then and the question remains unanswered now.Today's world of bloggers and citizen journalism only complicate the debate more, leading many to turn to Supreme Court cases and justices for clarification. Although the Branzburg decision ruled against journalists receiving protection under the First Amendment, each justice's opinion was subject to interpretation and allowed for future flexibility.

Justice White's defense of his decision referred to the First Amendment's press clause as a “fundamental personal right,” but if that were the founders intent, then a separate press clause would not be necessary at all. Press represents a business entity, therefore not every individual can be considered the press. Justice Potter Stewart argued in his 1974 speech at Yale that the freedom of press granted by the First Amendment refers to an institutional right. This idea seems more fitting with the founders' intentions than Justice White's concept of a personal right. One of the keys to his explanation that best denies White's argument is the concept that “if the Free Press guarantee meant no more than freedom of expression, it would be a constitutional redundancy.” To think that the freedom of the press gives the same protection as general citizen are provided, then Free Speech would have been all encompassing. The founders made it clear by specifically stating the press outright that the protection of the press was necessary for clarification. Not only are all citizens to be granted the right to speak freely, but a specific protection of the press is also guaranteed.

Judging by definitions from state shield laws Justice White contends that "the informative function asserted by the representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists.” Yet, none of the aforementioned titles are specifically mentioned in a separate context as receiving protection, nor do any other the above consider themselves to be members of the press. Another fact Justice Stewart so shrewdly notes, which is the thesis and driving point of his speech, is the undeniable notion that “The Free Press Clause extends protection to an institution. The publishing business is, in short, the only organized private business that is given explicit constitutional protection.” Remembering that the press is a business run by money helps to differentiate it from a citizen writing recreationally.

In many states that have shield laws protecting the reporter's privilege, a journalist is defined as a person working for and getting paid by a news organization. Although this definition may suffice for now, the future of technology is redefining what a news organization is. In his book “We're All Journalists Now,” Scott Gant asserts that citizen journalism is here to stay because new internet technology allows for quick and efficient fact checking. Yes, citizen journalists may be more reliable because of the internet access, but it can be argued that they do not have the same access a press pass provides for non-citizen journalists. Bloggers are not protected by state shield laws because they are not considered journalists. Yet, many journalists working for news organizations are paid to keep blogs. So one could argue that those journalists are not protected if they use confidential sources on their blogs.

In our current age of blogging, twitter, and citizen journalism anyone can be a journalist, but only few can turn these hobbies into full time careers. Many bloggers keep their identities anonymous, so how can protection or recognition as a journalist be merited if the public does not know who their information is coming from? Most bloggers or citizen journalists do not get fired because they fabricate stories, nor is there an editor to approve the use of a confidential source, so all the public has to rely on is that the publisher is trustworthy and ethical. Although, some of the above mentioned may occur in at a news organization there is punishment from the organization and government. If press can be regulated by government organizations, can it not be protected using the same methods of judgement? It can also be argued that since bloggers can be sued for libel they should also be protected under the same definition of the law they are being sued under.

A broad ruling cannot be given to an undefinable entity. The most fair definition of a journalist is the working definition located in the the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, a bill currently pending a Senate vote. The act states a person covered under the press is someone who, “regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate.” The terminology in this definition gives the most clear understanding to date of who a journalist is. Although it is broad, it remains selective. It is that selective nature that has the power to maintain the respectably of journalists and their work. Although the field of journalism is widening and changing form, it is still hard to prove undoubtedly that anyone can be a journalist now.

E. Terms Defined

1. An injunction is a court order that prevents certain actions by a person or organization involved in the case. President Nixon's administration used a court injunction to stop stories being published by The New York Times regarding the war in Vietnam citing that the stories endangered the troops as well as the nation's security.

2. A subpoena occurs when the court orders a person to appear in court to testify. The court subpoenaed two San Francisco Chronicle reporters for their confidential sources in the BALCO steroid case, which was later withdrawn when the defensive lawyer came forward as the source.

3. A grant or deny certiorare refers to whether the Supreme Court agrees or not to review a case from a lower court of appeals or state court that may have decided against them or refused to hear the case. The decision to hear the case (which needs at least 4 justices to vote in favor for it) is based on how important the case is not whether the court thinks the decision should be overturned. Brown v. Board of Education was granted a cert to the Supreme Court and which cited the 14th amendment to overturn the lower court's ruling.

4. Discovery refers to evidence that must be collected before the court case occurs. In the case Texas v. Johnson the evidence of the flag burning, chants, and spitting would be the discovery in the case.

5. Executive session occurs in a governmental body meeting in which it becomes private and closed to the press. The press is permitted in these closed sessions if necessary under the Freedom of Information Act and following the Federal Open Meeting Law in 1976, so long as it does not fit their ten exemptions. Therefore, a journalist would not be permitted to attend an executive session regarding Chrysler Corporation's trade secrets.

6. The Sunshine law in the government forces important organizations to both only openly publicize when their meetings occur and to open them to the public, but have a list of ten exemptions similar to the FOIA. Journalists therefore could not attend an arbitration hearing at a meeting under the law.

7. Fair use refers to the court's system in deciding whether a copyrighted work was used lawfully or would be considered infringement. Its defensive consists of four questions referring to the purpose, nature, amount, and effect of the used copyrighted work. In the Supreme Court case Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios in 1984, they decided videotaping television shows for the purpose of watching later is fair use.

8. A remand occurs if a higher court decides a case needs to be sent back down to a lower one to have the facts reevaluated, and this decision for a remand cannot be appealed. Once in the lower court, the next decision must be agreed upon by two of three judges and is rarely allowed to be reconsidered, although they may be be appealed to the highest state or Supreme Court. There was not a motion to remand in the Supreme Court case ACLU v. Reno because the Supreme Court believed the information provided was sufficient and decided to hear and rule n the case.

9. Probable cause is needed in order to arrest someone or to obtain a search warrant because it gives acceptable and well-founded evidence that a crime was committed. The police in the Wilson v. Layne case had probable cause to enter the Wilson's home believing his son, who had violated probation was there.

10. Shield laws protect journalists on a state-by-state basis in keeping their sources confidential without being held in contempt of court if they are subpoenaed. These shield laws were created in thirty-six states and the District of Columbia as a response to the Supreme Court decision against a reporters' privilege in the Branzburg case. If California had a shield law blogger Josh Wolf would not have been help in contempt of court and jailed for not revealing his parts of his protest videos which were not posted online.

11. Burden of proof is evidence in a case that needs to be demonstrated in order to make a case in a court of law. The plaintiff must demonstrate these claims in libel cases. Prior to the New York Times' Supreme Court appeal, Commissioner Sullivan had the burden of proof in his defamation case against the Times in Alabama.

12. Actual damages refer to the amount of harm the plaintiff experiences in deciding a libel case and is usually the most common claim. They are extremely arbitrary due to their definition of loss, whether it is in the community, humiliation, mental suffering, or monetary loss. Humiliation and mental suffering were cited as actual damages by the alleged rape victim in the Duke lacrosse case.

13. Contempt of court refers to acts judged by the court as preventing or stopping a court case from continuing justly. Judith Miller was held in contempt of court when she refused to disclose her confidential sources in the Valerie Plame case.

14. The verdict is what the jury decides upon in a case. The verdict in the Richmond newspapers v. Virginia case was that criminal trials are to be open to the public because the First Amendment prevents judges from closing them without looking for alternative means.

15. Work made for hire refer copyright situations in which works are not created by the employer but rather an employee of the company or another company altogether. In this case the copyright does not belong to the creator but to the employer who hired them. In the court case Community for Non-Violence v. Reid court said that the organization would only have copyright rights to the work if the creator was in fact their employee, making the work a work made for hire. The court proceeded to define an employee in the case to make it clearer for the future.

*Photo by ctlgbtlaw.files.wordpress.com