Barbara Walters

    Barbara Walters is one of the most recognizable television hosts, if not the most recognizable. She has been on tv for 65 years and retired at the top with countless awards, and according to biography.com she was earning the highest out of any television host at the time of her retirement with a whopping 12 million dollars. Ms. Walters wears many hats as she is a television host, acclaimed author, and journalist. She published her first article in the 60s giving tips to those who often found themselves tongue-tied in social settings. This was eventually turned into a book. Barbara Walters paved the way for all female journalists throughout the years. She has interviewed every president and first lady since Nixon. And made journalism history by interviewing Fidel Castro, and giving the people the first inside look at a Whitehouse Christmas. The list goes on and on about how many great people she spoke with and how many great stories she told. But her legacy is not only about getting to sit down with the world’s most famous people or being paid the most, her legacy is all about firsts. Barbara Walters was the first female co-host of a major evening news program, she was the first female morning co-host, she was the first female to make a million dollars, and so on. Walters revolutionized journalism by making her interviews not only about the guests and what they are like, the stories they share, and an insight into their lives, anyone can ask questions to bring that out of people. But what brought people back to listening to Barbara Walters was Barbara Walters. Her personality and her brand showed in her interviews with massively famous people as much as theirs would. Barbara Walters is by far the most influential person in her field and a true trailblazer at the core of the definition.  

Anonymous. “Barbara Walters.” The Quill, vol. 109, no. 3, 2021, pp. 22–27.

Final EOTO: Erma Bombeck

    Erma Bombeck was born on February 21, 1927, in Dayton, Ohio. When she was young she fell in love with reading and books fairly quick. When she was just 13 years old she began her life in journalism. She first started writing for her High School newspaper when she was thirteen and was very good at it. At the age of 15, she got a job at the Dayton Herald where she was a copy girl. After she graduated High School, she began working for the Journal Herald where she wrote obituaries. She used the money she made from this job to pay for her college tuition at Ohio University. She soon however transferred to the University of Dayton to be closer to her family. She was upset about moving to the new school and was nervous about paying for her tuition. An advisor later came up to her and recommended that she started writing again. Erma began writing again for the University newspaper. Erma graduated in 1949 and she became the first to graduate from her family. 

Working to Housewife to Working Housewife

Erma started working at the Dayton Journal-Herald for the women’s sections. She loved to write and work, but she soon began to feel like she was not doing enough. While Erma was starting work, she was writing letters to Bill Bombeck while he was fighting in the Korean War. When Bill came back, they soon got married at the age of 22. After Erma and Bill got married, Erma stopped working to be a full-time stay-at-home mom and housewife. However, after her first child, she began to write again about her life as a housewife. She wrote specifically for other housewives in the Dayton area. Her columns became so famous that she got her job at the Journal Herald again where she continued to write columns. The Journal Herald then sold her column to the Syndicate, which was sent all over the United States. Her column "At Wit's End" was in 38 papers across the United States. Five years later, over 500 papers had her column featured in it.

From Paper to the Screen

    After Erma rose to fame in the newspapers, she began writing books. She published 13 books in total. Erma’s Book The Grass Is Always Greener Over the Septic Tank became a bestseller which made her become even more popular. A producer named Bob Shanks reached out to Erma about a new television morning show called, Good Morning America. At first, Erma was not interested in joining the show at all, however, she said yes and was on the show for 11 years. Later a movie adaptation of The Grass Is Always Greener Over the Septic Tank was made and it was a failure and critics did not like the movie at all. However, Erma got licensed for situation comedy and pitched a show to the producers of the Cosby Show. The producers loved the idea and they made it happen. The show was based on her own family life and she wrote 5 of the 8 scripts. The show was later canceled and she was asked to make another show but she turned it down. 

Why Erma was so Adored and her Legacy

    Erma was so adored because of her comedy and because she found her niche with housewives. She understood how lonely and boring it was to be a housewife so she wanted to bring joy and laughter to other women who were housewives. Erma was also tired of the stereotypes given to women and housewives and used her writing as a platform to make light of the situation. The women reading also had the same beliefs and were really related to Erma. Erma was also a voice for the Equal Rights Amendment. She did not want anything to do with politics but found herself appointed to the President’s National Advisory Committee for Women. This confused many because she loved being a housewife but advocated for equal rights. She debuted this with the fact that she wanted to be a voice for her children. Today, Erma is recognized in a workshop under her name at the University of Dayton to honor her legacy. 

Ohio reading road trip: Erma Louise Bombeck Biography. Ohio Reading Road Trip | Erma Louise Bombeck Biography. (n.d.). Retrieved April 29, 2022, from https://www.orrt.org/bombeck/ 

Camera's In the Courtroom

   

    According to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53,  "...the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom." This rule was first adopted in 1946 and has made changes based on the technology that was evolving over the years. Cameras in the courtroom have gone in and out of style. First, in 1946, there was no photography permitted, then in 1972 the courts prohibited the broadcasting of all types, and in 1990 a judge may authorize based on their own discretion, and then quickly again in 1994 cameras in the courtroom were prohibited again. And as of 2016 cameras are allowed in courtrooms again but only for the presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of the record of the proceedings, for security purposes, for other purposes of judicial administration, for the photographing, recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments, or in accordance with pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference. I believe that cameras in the courtroom can be both very powerful and also very misleading. For starters, it can be powerful because it gives people an insight of what is going on inside the courtroom. This can lead to a greater belief in our court system, or if many people are upset with a certain ruling they can go back, watch it for themselves, and create their own opinion. Cameras in the courtroom could also be very misleading, much like our media sources today. Certain comments or testimonies could be taken out of context and the media can portray people however they would like. So in summary, cameras, and broadcasting in the courtroom is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it would make sense for the people to see what court rulings are shaping their country's future, and on the other hand, any politically motivated media outlet can manipulate the story and tell it how they want their viewers to see it. 

Anonymous. “Cameras in the Courtroom?” American Bar Association Journal, vol. 68, 1982, pp. 416–417.

Goodnight and Good Luck and McCarthy Era Journalism

 

McCarthyism & The Red Scare

    Hysteria is defined as a behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess. We have seen hysteria throughout history from uncontrollable laughter to political hysteria. One of the most famous examples of hysteria that has gone through the United States was the Red Scare or McCarthyism. The red scare was the fear that communism was taking over the United States and people in the government who were communists were taking over the government. It was the fear that our enemy at the time, communism, was taking over the United States. McCarthy added to the fear in the country by adding the idea to out who is communists and to make sure they are punished. This led to even more hysteria in the country because the people feared not only communism but public scrutiny.

Edward R. Murrow

    Edward R. Murrow is a famous CBS reporter that was best known for his reporting in World War II and during the McCarthy era. He has been remembered as being the main downfall of McCarthy. Edward R. Murrow reported on the Ford 50th Anniversary Show about many political topics, including criticism toward McCarthy that was seen by 60 million viewers. Later he created a segment that criticized McCarthy and pointed out his hypocrisy. The reviews he received were far different than what he and CBS expected which was very positive. Once McCarthy got the chance to respond to Murrow he accused Murrow of being a communist. McCarthy’s lack of response to everything Murrow pointed out made the public grow more of a dislike for the senator. 

    In the movie, we see the anxiety that McCarthy has instilled in the United States public. We see coworkers with Murrow being anxious about having to say they are not communist because it seemed like no one was safe from McCarthy even if you are not communist. Then the movie shows how no one wants to cover the story about McCarthy because they do not want to be profiled next. However, Murrow hears the story about the airman being discharged for his family potentially being communist. Murrow from the beginning shows his worry for democracy in the United States and that there is no fair trial for being accused of being communist and there’s no availability of freedom of speech because you may be profiled. My favorite quote of Murrow’s was in his speech, “We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable, and complacent. We have a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information.” I think this was extremely relevant to the red-scare and the era they were in. The people were too comfortable to see the truth and they were stuck in this hysteria and being too complacent. 

McCarthy and Journalism 

    As shown in the movie, you can see that journalism was far different during the McCarthy era. During the McCarthy era, journalism was almost censored because of the fear of being flagged as a communist sympathizer and losing your job. The journalists did not have any restrictions on reporting on McCarthyism, but the fear of losing their job and the fear of the mob made journalists unable to report on what was going on. In the movie, you could see that no one wanted to report on McCarthy but Murrow wanted to. Murrow is portrayed as strong and being the one to break the barriers for journalists, but even before his segment on McCarthy, you see his foot tapping which shows his internal anxiety. The movie emphasizes the responsibility of the media and how the media helps the public and the people. But it also shows how much these journalists put on the line to show the people what is truly going on. 

Common Sense and How it Shaped Journalism

 

    Thomas Paine was one of the first to use the media as a tool for gaining political support in the United States. Thomas Paine used the media to go against the British monarch and to discuss controversial opinions. He created the idea in America to have an uncensored press and to be able to speak freely about anything, including radical politics. One of his most famous pieces was Common Sense. This piece was a monumental moment in journalism and the revolution. Common Sense sparked the revolution when Thomas Paine wrote about democracy and called out the corrupt monarch and how they lack human rights. Common Sense was the first bestseller in America and it reached everyone, even the common people. Common Sense was huge and it shaped the minds of the people in the country. Thomas Paine set a new standard as well in journalism because he was no politician and had very low education. Since he was not an upper-class politician he saw the effects of the monarch far different and opened the term “the people” to the lower class and even slaves. His message and motive were very clear he wanted to help everyone oppressed by the monarch and believed that the revolution and democracy would help the lower class and others oppressed. Since Common Sense was so accessible, easy to understand and so relatable to many by most of the country it gained the support of most of the country and it was the reason that upped the morale of the country for the revolution. Thomas Paine risked his life by speaking out and could have been charged with sedition by the British government or by revolting by the American government. His courage and motivation to help the oppressed by using his writing and setting a new standard in journalism to have open debates about the government were monumental. 

Paine, Thomas. Rights of Man: Common Sense ; and Other Political Writings. Edited by Mark Philp, Oxford University Press, 1998. INSERT-MISSING-DATABASE-NAME, INSERT-MISSING-URL. Accessed 26 Apr. 2022.

Press and the War

 

    The Press, the government, and the military are far more closely tied than we may believe. The press has the responsibility to report on the wars and provide that information to the people and sometimes help gain support for the war. The government and the military are responsible for the wars and for making sure the troops and country are safe. The relationships between the three change through time and change with wars. 

WWII 

    During this time the relations between the press and the government were far different than what we see today. Journalists and reporters were seen as helping the war effort and a part of the war effort which made the relations between the press and the government very close. Journalists at this time almost tiptoed around the government and military to make sure what they were releasing was helping the war effort and not putting the United States in a bad light. The government and the military trusted the media and almost expected them to sort out anything that made the United States look bad. There was far more lying in the press at this time but it was accepted and seen as beneficial because it was a time of crisis. 

Vietnam War 

    The Vietnam war is what actually ruined the strong trust and relationship between the press and the government. At this time, the press was against the war and the government was actively trying to silence the press so they could gain more support for the war. However, the press still reported the casualties and the length of the war and this made the public grow a stronger dislike for the war in Vietnam. The reporters were also facing issues with even getting the news over to the United States. Reporters would have to record the content and ship the recording over and it would take days to get back to the United States. This made reporters have to make sure that the content they were getting would be able to be used days later. On top of the issues they were facing with time, the reporters were being lied to by the military. One reporter saw United States helicopters in Vietnam when the United States claimed there were none over there yet. When the reporter asked the military why the helicopters are there they claimed to have never seen them. Since the military and the press were telling different stories this caused issues with the public and the public had a hard time choosing who to trust. The government claimed that it was not censorship since there were no restrictions on the press.

Iraqi War/Persian Gulf War 

    The Iraqi government was lying to their own press similarly to what the United States did during the Vietnam war and this made the United States government upset because the United States was being shined in a bad light and it was false information. The reporters reacted by going to Iraq to report the war and report all of it so the people can choose what they want to believe. The constant reporting led to the CNN effect. 

CNN Effect 

    The CNN effect was the constant filming of the war in the middle east. The constant filming made the world open to instant coverage and allowed the world to see everything going on in the war. This affected public opinion around the world. The CNN effect also changed how diplomats and politicians reacted to issues in the world. The CNN effect left politicians and leaders to have accountability for events going on in the world. For example, George W. Bush saw starving kids in Somalia all over the news and he reacted by sending troops and food for help. The CNN effect showed what was really going on in the world and also was used as a tool by politicians and countries to make them look better.  

The Media and the War on Terrorism, edited by Stephen Hess, and Marvin Kalb, Brookings Institution Press, 2003. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/highpoint-ebooks/detail.action?docID=268832.

Journo Hero Reaction: William Lloyd Garrison

    William Lloyd Garrison was a journalist in the early 1800s that played a vital role in the abolitionist movement. When he was just 25 he started to become more involved in the movement. He started out by joining the American Colonization Society that wanted to send free blacks back to Africa. At the time, this was what they believed would help the freed slaves they could completely escape slavery in the United States. Later William Lloyd Garrison left the American Colonization Society after realizing that the organization wanted to preserve slavery still and get rid of freed slaves. After leaving the organization, William Lloyd Garrison became an editor for an anti-slavery newspaper called, The Genius of Universal Emancipation. 

    After being there for a couple years, William Lloyd Garrison began his very own anti-slavery newspaper called the Liberator. William Lloyd Garrison used the paper to talk about the immediate emancipation of slaves. At this time talking about having immediate emancipation of slaves was huge and not something that many people agreed with. Adding on, he also believed that once the slaves were free that they would have complete freedoms as the whites in the country had. Before he wrote about those views, people only believed that they should be free and not be completely immersed with the white people so him stating those views publicly and to a huge audience was revolutionary at the time. William Lloyd Garrison’s views were extremely liberal at the time but him publishing his views raised the conversation on emancipation in the country. William Lloyd Garrison was extremely radical at the time, but he made sure that he was not inciting violence. He made it clear he wanted peace, nonviolence, and passive resistance. Later, he created the American Anti-Slavery Society which focused on immediate emancipation. William Lloyd Garrison was a vital part of the emancipation of slaves. He used his strengths of writing to get the word and his views out to raise discussions and help convince people to join his side in helping get the immediate emancipation of slaves. 

Nye, Russel B. William Lloyd Garrison and the Humanitarian Reformers. [First edition] ed., Little, Brown, 1955.

The Newsies Reflection

    In the late 1800s and the early 1900s, newsboys were used to give out newspapers. These newsboys would purchase newspapers and resell them to make a profit. The newspaper relied very heavily on these boys because they were the main source of distribution for the newspapers. Most of the boys came from poor immigrant backgrounds and selling the newspapers was a lot of help for these families. However, in 1899 the newsboys began to strike against Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph. The newspaper boys began to stop selling the newspapers in a strike against the rising prices that Pulitzer and Randolph implemented. The strikes began to turn violent when newsboys were caught selling, they would be jumped by a mob of striking newsboys. Later, the newsboys joined together for a rally that helped them gain the support of the community. The strikes were no longer violent because the people were also on the side of the newsboys. Kid Blink was a key part of the rally and was one of the lead speakers. Kid Blink was a huge leader for the newsboys, however, he began to go against the strike. Kid Blink was rumored to have been bribed to sell newspapers and the rumors began circulating more when people noticed he was wearing new clothes. Later that night, the newsboys began to fight and Kid Blink was arrested and later released. The strike ended once the newspapers began to compromise with the boys. The companies were not willing to bring the price down. However, the newspapers offered to buy back the newspapers that the newsboys did not end up selling so they would not work late at night and not have a huge loss. 

Hill, Kim. “Newsboys Strike.” Storyworks, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, pp. 24–28.

Anonymous Sources

     “Government officials believe that Trump’s response to COVID was an embarrassment to the Trump administration” Many questions come to mind when reading this quote. Why did they hide their identity? Would saying this make the official lose their job? Or are they just a small minority in government that disagrees with the Trump administration? Are these high-level officials or low-level politicians? We would never know since the source was kept anonymous.

  What is an Anonymous Source? What are the Pros? What are the Cons?

   An anonymous source is a person being interviewed for a newspaper or other piece but does not want their name given out. There are a lot of pros and reasons why someone would want to be anonymous and why journalists use anonymous sources. The first reason is that some stories would have never been told if they could not be anonymous. Normally when anonymous sources are used to protect someone and if there is a lot at stake for that person then remaining anonymous will protect them and allow the story to be told. Using anonymous sources helps tell the truth of the story and to seek justice. If someone is the victim of abuse then to remain anonymous would be needed to seek justice and protect that person. Adding on, anonymous sources can be used to seek justice in society. An anonymous source may want to shine a light on corruption in society, government, or the workplace. There are cons to using anonymous sources such as anonymous sources can spread lies and make the story less credible. The cons outweigh the pros from time to time with using anonymous sources because it can cause legal issues if the information is a lie or not credible.

Laws for Anonymous Sources

For many years, reporters and journalists have been protected by the Reporter’s Privilege. The Reporter’s Privilege made it so reporters have the right under the First Amendment to not have to reveal their sources. However, in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) the supreme court ruled that the First Amendment does not give reporters the right to refuse to reveal their sources and that the person revealed can sue for damages. This caused many issues with journalists because that made it so if a reporter breaks their promise of anonymity, you may be sued or if you refuse to reveal, you can face jail time. Dissenters on the case stated that reporters should only have to reveal sources if the government has a compelling interest. Justice Stewart in his dissent wrote an outline and three reasons for when reporters should be forced to reveal their sources. He stated, “1. The government must show that there is probable cause that the reporter possesses information that is relevant to a specific violation of the law. 2. There are no alternative means for obtaining the information being sought. 3. There is a “compelling and overriding” interest by the state in the information in question.” These rules made the outline for what we have today called Shield Laws. Shield Laws back up the Reporter’s Privilege and enforced what Justice Stewart wrote in his dissent. 49 states have Shield Laws today, including DC. Even though the Shield Laws protect reporters, there are limits. For example, in some states, a reporter cannot disclose confidential information. These laws all together made it clear that reporters have the freedoms to use anonymous sources but they created an outline for when to use anonymous sources. 

Journalist Rules for When to Use Anonymous Sources

    Today journalists use four main rules for when to use anonymous sources. The first one is that an editor must also know the source. An editor must know the source as well to create almost a filter so that lies are not spread. For example, Janet Cooke wrote an article that was extremely popular that described the story of an 8-year-old boy who was addicted to drugs. Janet Cooke went on to even win a Pulitzer Prize. However, her Pulitzer Prize was soon taken away when it was found out that she lied about the whole thing and made the kid up. If an editor was to check before she published the articles it would have prevented her from losing her job and ruining the reputation of the newspaper. The second rule is that the story must be important, which is a given. To use an anonymous source the story must be so interesting and important that the source has to be anonymous. The third rule is that anonymity should be a last resort. Using an anonymous source can cause a lot of distrust and makes the source less credible, using other sources is a better option. For example, using another person is more credible and it puts the story on the record. Another better source is using documents. Documents can have more in-depth information and more details but it is more interesting to hear from another person and often why journalists skip over using documents. If all else fails, then that is when to use an anonymous source. Using an anonymous source is easier and cheaper but it loses credibility. The last rule for using anonymous sources is that when using an anonymous source, the reason for anonymity must be explained in the story. Adding context to why that person was kept anonymous creates more credibility and when you use an anonymous source you are losing the source so adding why creates more validity. 

Franklin, Bob, and Matt Carlson. Journalists, Sources, and Credibility : New Perspectives. Taylor & Francis, 2010. INSERT-MISSING-DATABASE-NAME, INSERT-MISSING-URL. Accessed 29 Apr. 2022.

Anonymous. “Reporters and Confidential Sources.” American Journalism Review, vol. 28, no. 1, 2006, pp. 40–41.

Wikileaks - Collateral Murder, How Did Journalism Get Here and How is Julian Assange Innocent?

     

    An Australian journalist named Julian Assange is currently being held in British prison with a possible life sentence or death sentence for outing the United States' involvement in the murders of 2 Bagdad journalists and two wounded children. The United States claims what he did was illegal and a threat to the national security of the United States. However, United States law actually states how what he did is legal. Journalists for many years have felt the wrath of the government and have faced imprisonment due to the changing laws in an attempt to silence the journalists. What Julian Assange did was no different than any other journalist does which was to give the information to the people.

Spanish-American War

    In 1898, the Spanish-American war began. This war was a pivotal moment in history for journalism and the role that journalism had in the United States government. Yellow journalism or sensationalized journalism became bigger in the country. Meaning, that journalists were hungry for stories and exaggerated the truth for a story. Journalists saw the war as an opportunity for a story and began beating the war drums. Up until journalists got involved, the United States was not involved in the war and it was just a war between Cuba and Spain. 

World War I

    Later in 1914-18, the role of journalist almost flipped. Before the United States' involvement, the war was called the European War. However, the public wanted to be involved in the war, but the journalists at this time were more interested in human rights and against war. In 1917, the espionage act was passed. The Espionage act stated that it was a crime to undermine the efforts of the U.S. military or assist the enemies of the war. This meant that journalists who were against the war could not express their views which should be protected by the 1st amendment because them not supporting the war then helps the enemies. The Sedition Act clarified that stating that you cannot print or write information that the government may see as a threat or has malicious intent against the United States government. This made it impossible for journalists to speak out about their anti-war views and the government pretty much silenced all anti-war journalists with these acts. 

NYT v Sullivan (1964)

    In the 1960’s the Times newspaper wrote about donations for Martin Luther King jr. and had some small errors in the text. The city Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, feared that because the information was false, this looks bad on his part and on the others involved. He asked Times to take that information back and then sued Times for libel action.

This case ended with Times winning the case and the supreme court clarified what is libel and not. The court clarified that if the information was just false but had no malicious intent then it is not libel. This clarified for journalists that false information can be printed as long as there is no “malice intent.” This also helped journalists because now journalists cannot just be charged with defamation unless there is malice intent proven. 

Bartnicki v Vopper (2001)

A call was intercepted and recorded by an unknown person of a phone call between a chief union negotiator and a union president. After the call was recorded, the recording was sent to a radio station and played over the radio. The negotiator and the president claimed that this went against wiretapping laws. 

The supreme court concluded that the party who released the information is not liable. This means that journalists can release information even classified information that is given to them because they were not the ones who illegally obtained that information. 

United States Law and Julian Assange

    It is really interesting taking a journalism class and a class about intelligence with a former CIA agent. The two sides of who is wrong in their eyes are so interesting. However, what it comes down to are past precedent and the law. My CIA professor explained in his eyes that Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are not whistleblowers but it was leaks of information that can harm the United States' national security. The difference between leaks and whistleblowers is that leaks are illegal because leaking classified information is illegal, but a whistleblower is not illegal and outing information. While that may be true that they did harm the United States' national security, looking at history and laws we can see that what Assange did was not illegal. Julian Assange was just the publisher of information which by Bartnicki v Vopper that is legal for him to do. He was not the one that obtained the information illegally but rather he was the one who released it to the public. Under NYT v Sullivan, it backed Assange up as well because he released the information and there is no proof of malice intent. 

Julian Assange is not a journalist who did anything abnormal. Journalists for years have been publishing information about the United States government and have been beating the war drum or trying to maintain the peace in the country. In all, the journalists for years have been doing their duty of providing the information given to them to the public. However, the journalist, in this case, is the one being held accountable instead of the United States. In the chaos of WikiLeaks, the people have forgotten the key issue at hand and that is the illegal activity and the lies that the government has done.

Leigh, David, et al. Wikileaks : Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy. 1st ed., 1st ed., Public Affairs, 2011. INSERT-MISSING-DATABASE-NAME, INSERT-MISSING-URL. Accessed 29 Apr. 2022.