Mediaboss Marketing

Of the following three hypothetical stories, which is the opinion piece?

Answer: C, although many people nowadays feel B is opinion, too. A few might even say A.

That uncertainty is proving to be a conundrum for newspaper managers, journalists and readers alike.

Commentary and analysis have boomed in the age of the internet. What used to be relegated to a single page in a newspaper perhaps two pages on a Sunday now is available ad infinitum on the web.

And as a certain crass saying about opinions goes: Everybodys got one. Thanks to the internet, most everybody also has a virtual printing press or broadcast station to distribute it unfiltered to the masses.

As Forum Communications Co. continues its weeklong project on news literacy and the First Amendment, managers and content producers in the company have realized the difference between news and opinion or at least the foggy haze that sometimes envelopes the two must be addressed.

It seems that too often, readers mistake news as opinion. In some cases, readers believe a newspapers simple decision to pursue and publish certain stories is opinion disguised as news. And to be honest, perhaps the medias sometimes casual packaging of opinion content could be adding to a growing distrust in news.

To address this, a team of people from throughout Forum Communications convened earlier this year to discuss ways we can alleviate concerns we have heard from our own readers.

With that in mind, a few crib notes about news and opinion content.

News stories include the byline of the reporter and, ideally, outline the basic facts of a story. In journalism classes, young reporters are taught to provide the who, what, when, where, why and how of an event or issue. Our companys news stories are verified by sources, by data or by both.

News stories about a fire, for instance, may not include quotes or comments from a source. Stories that outline issues generally include comments from both sides.

News stories can be found scattered throughout a newspaper or website, often categorized by sections Life or Region, for instance.

These are unsigned pieces that reside on a newspapers editorial or opinion page; theyre unsigned because editorials traditionally represent thoughts or work by multiple authors or are written on behalf of the publisher, a newspapers top executive. Often, they are attributed to an editorial board, generally a group that helps determine a newspapers editorial stances or gathers to discuss issues with sources.

These are usually personal in nature and represent that particular authors insight. Columns run a gamut of styles and genres, ranging from politics to food, or simply life in general. At most newspapers, they are distinguishable by the inclusion of the authors photo. Columnists may not always be full-time employees of a newspaper but they usually are regular, paid contributors and hired based on their background or expertise in a subject. Columnists are expected to be interesting, sometimes provocative, sometimes thoughtful and sometimes humorous.

Often, columns are published on the opinion pages, but some are printed on pages that match their particular genre, such as sports or lifestyle pages. And while a columnist may not necessarily be an opinion columnist, they do at times offer their personal thoughts.

Similar to columns, op-eds almost always are submitted by unpaid contributors who do not have any connection to the newspaper. Opinion editors often are finicky about accepting op-eds, following criteria based on an authors expertise.

Op-eds go by many names. At the Grand Forks Herald, theyre known as Viewpoints and at the Duluth News Tribune, theyre known as Local Views. At The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead, they have no special name. They universally are published on opinion pages.

These are shorter pieces, also from unpaid contributors, that dont require any particular expertise, but rather allow news consumers to voice their thoughts on the news of the day.

Forum Communications Co. is dedicated to using its resources to not only cover the news, but also to offer insightful commentary that promotes dialogue to better educate our readers on important issues. The best way to do that is through robust opinion pages, replete with editorials, columns, op-eds and letters to the editor.

Meanwhile, helping our customers understand why we do it all while redoubling our efforts to differentiate news and opinion remains ever important.

Korrie Wenzel is publisher of the Grand Forks Herald.

Original post:
Seeking to clear haze between news and opinion - The Dickinson Press

A legal battle about whether a 2018 constitutional amendment known as Marsys Law can shield the identities of police officers went to the Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The city of Tallahassee filed a notice that is a first step in asking the Supreme Court to decide whether the constitutional amendment, which is designed to bolster crime victims rights, can apply to police officers who were threatened in use-of-force incidents.

A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal last month sided with two Tallahassee police officers, who argued that, as victims, they were entitled to privacy protections included in Marsys Law.

The decision came in a lawsuit filed against the city by the Florida Police Benevolent Association, which represents the police officers, who are identified in court documents as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2.

As is common, the citys notice of taking the issue to the Supreme Court did not provide detailed legal arguments. But a statement issued last week by City Attorney Cassandra Jackson said the case is one of great public importance to the state of Florida in its appellate level interpretation of Marsys Law.

With respect for the (appellate) courts opinion and appreciation of the difficult work performed by police officers every day, the decision has far-reaching implications related to public transparency and is deserving of final review by Floridas highest court, Jackson said in the statement.

The lawsuit is the first major test of whether Marsys Law conflicts with a decades-old government-in-the-sunshine amendment that enshrined in the Florida Constitution some of the nations broadest public-records laws.

Marsys Law addresses a series of issues related to victims rights, including offering privacy protections. Nearly 62 percent of voters approved the measure in 2018.

In the April 6 appellate-court decision, Judge Lori Rowe wrote that nothing in Marsys Law excludes law enforcement officers --- or other government employees --- from the protections granted crime victims.

Rowe, joined by Judges Timothy Osterhaus and Robert Long, wrote that a police officer meets the definition of a crime victim under Marsys Law when a crime suspect threatens the officer with deadly force, placing the officer in fear for his life.

The two police officers in the case were involved in separate use-of-force incidents. In an incident that drew national attention, John Doe 2 shot a Black transgender man last May. Because the police officer was the victim of an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in the incident involving Natosha Tony McDade, the Police Benevolent Association said he had the right to invoke the privacy privilege provided by Marsys Law.

The First Amendment Foundation, the Florida Press Association and a number of media outlets intervened in the lawsuit, arguing that allowing Marsys Law to apply to law-enforcement officers would undercut the states open-records laws.

The appellate ruling reversed a decision by then-Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson, who in July found that the explicit language of Marsys Law was not intended to apply to law enforcement officers when acting in their official capacity.

Dodson said the case involved balancing victims rights with the publics right to hold government accountable by inspecting public records and ordered the city to release the names of the two police officers.

See the original post here:
Battle Over Shielding Identities Of Police Officers Headed To Supreme Court - WUSF News

Lisa Graves| Guest Columnist

On April 26, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could unmoor decades of transparency laws, even as dark money spending by special interests continues to rise.

The courts new majority is being asked by billionaire Charles Kochs nonprofits to expand on the notion that money is speech by ruling that the First Amendment bars disclosure laws that may chill large donors from giving more money to nonprofits.

On the surface, the case, known as Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, is about whether a state can require a nonprofit group to reveal a list of its donors who give $5,000 or more. That data is not public, but a glitch in Californias electronic filing system inadvertently made it searchable to other filers for a short period, which Kochs Americans for Prosperity Foundation discovered.

The rule requiring secret disclosure has been followed in millions of nonprofit filings since 1970. There is no evidence it was misused or abused by regulators or others, and the California flaw was fixed.

But that was not good enough for Kochs Americans for Prosperity, which apparently had been refusing to provide that data to California anyway, even though it was required by the Internal Revenue Service on Schedule B of their annual tax filings. The IRS has allowed nonprofits to redact the names but requires public disclosure of the largest amounts.

This rule is the only reason we know, for example, that a group called the Wellspring Committee received almost all of its funding, more than $28 million, from a single donor after Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016. The donors identity remains unknown.

Between 2016-17, Wellspring gave a total of $38 million to a group called the Judicial Crisis Network, which spent millions to pressure the Senate to block President Barack Obamas nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, and then to push for the confirmation of President Donald Trumps nominee to that seat, Neil Gorsuch. After spending additional millions to help get Brett Kavanaugh confirmed, Wellspring closed.

The case before the Supreme Court continues Kochs assault on even minimal transparency and oversight of nonprofits, which became increasingly involved in elections after the controversial Citizens United ruling in 2010.

Since then, Koch has helped raise and spend more than a billion dollars to influence elections, but the donors are kept hidden. That is why spending through such groups, like Americans for Prosperity, is so robust. Unlike money donated directly to a candidate or political party, which must be disclosed, donations to groups like Americans for Prosperity are secret.

In fact, we do not even know how much Koch himself or Koch Industries has spent, due to Sen. Mitch McConnells blocking of disclosure bills.

Americans for Prosperity has taken credit for spending millions to help GOP candidates win elections and to get Trump-appointed judges confirmed. That includes helping Amy Coney Barrett get confirmed right before the 2020 election, which is why Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and others asked that she recuse herself from hearing the case. Barrett refused.

But now, Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are poised to aid the agenda of the dark money groups that helped sweep them onto the Supreme Court. They may even strike a fatal blow against disclosure laws, like HR 1, the For the People Act, which would shine a light on billionaires like Koch who have secretly spent untold millions to influence elections.

This is the wrong way to go. Our democracy desperately needs more sunshine, not more darkness.

Lisa Graves is the executive director of True North Research and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice. This column was produced for The Progressive magazine and distributed by Tribune News Service.

See original here:
Dont open the door further to dark money: Our democracy needs more sunshine - Milford Daily News

To protect individual rights, the framers of the United States Constitution added ten amendments to the document, which came into force in 1792, three years after the Constitution itself did. These amendments are collectively named the Bill of Rights.

Arguably, the First Amendment is also the most important to the maintenance of a democratic government. It states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first part of that statement reflects the framers experience with the long history of religious strife in Europe. They realized that religious discord can be explosive and cause tremendous disruption in politics. It would be doubly so if one religious sect were favored over all others. So, they ensured that federal government cannot interfere in the citizens practice of their religion.

The freedoms of speech, press, assembly and the right to petition the government and seek redress of grievances proclaim that citizens have the right to call the government to account. Freedom of speech and press allows citizens to communicate their ideas verbally and in writing, while freedom of assembly lets them publicly express a common interest. The right to petition allows citizens to point out to the government where it did not follow the law, to seek changes, as well as damages for such missteps.

Of course, there are limits to these freedoms. One may not force the tenets of his or her religion on those who do not observe those beliefs. Harmful speech, such as yelling fire in a crowded room, is not protected, nor is a written lie that causes harm. As well, gatherings must be peaceful. Destruction of the property of others is not protected by the First Amendment.

Liberty is to faction [political parties or movements] what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires, said James Madison, the principal framer of the Constitution. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

Read the original:
U.S. Institutions - Why is the First Amendment Important?

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Published in NH Bar News(4/21/2021)

In the past several years a number of religious accommodationcases have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, an interesting trendwhere the religious beliefs and rights of individuals andbusinesses conflict with other fundamental rights of employees,students, and even the public. The cases have receivedtremendous publicity and have stirred rancorous debate inclassrooms, bar rooms, and on talk radio. The social mediasoundbites, however, sometimes miss the subtle and not-so-subtlelegal arguments along this collision course.

In 2014, the Supreme Court decided the case of Burwell v.Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 US 682 (2014) ruling that HobbyLobby's owners' religious beliefs trumped theiremployees' rights to health insurance coverage forcontraception as required by the Affordable Care Act. TheCourt ruled 5-4 that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993allowed the for-profit company to deny this coverage to itsemployees.

This was followed by Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. ColoradoCivil Rights Commission, 584 US ___ (2018), a 7-2 decisionwhich permitted a bakery owner to refuse to bake a cake for a gaycouple's wedding. However, rather than deciding whetherfree exercise or free speech rights are violated by forcing abusiness to provide services to a couple with whose lifestyle theowners do not agree, the Court ruled for Masterpiece Cakeshopconcluding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstratedimpermissible hostility to religion in finding in favor of thecouple. Noteworthy is that by this time the Supreme Court hadaffirmed in Obgerfell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) thatgay couples have the fundamental right to marry.

Supreme Court scholar Erwin Chemerinsky in his analysis ofMasterpiece Cakeshop opined that "allantidiscrimination statutes pose a tension between equality andliberty." More precisely, "Is a business'sfreedom to choose its customers [or employees] more important thanthe government's interest in stopping sexual orientationdiscrimination?"

By 2020, the Court had also decided Bostock v. ClaytonCounty, GA, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020) ruling that Title VIIprohibits employment discrimination based on lesbian, gay, bisexualand transgender (LGBTQ) status.

Last year, in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v.Morrissey-Berru,140 S.Ct. 2049 (2020) the Court, heldthat the "ministerial exception" which was established inthe Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church &School v.EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012) precluded twoteachers, employed by different Catholic schools, from pursuingemployment discrimination claims.The ministerial exceptionbars ministers from suing churches and other religious institutionsfor employment discrimination. Although the teachers were notordained ministers, the schools in the consolidated cases arguedthat the exception nonetheless applied because the teachers playeda key role in teaching religion to their students. TheSupreme Court, in a 7-2 vote, agreed.

Things got more interesting when the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission ("EEOC") proposed an update to its2008 guidance on religious discrimination in the workplace.The commission voted 3-2 (with the two democratic membersobjecting) to finalize it on January 15, 2021 just days beforePresident Biden took office. The EEOC was clear that theguidance was being updated in large part due to the Our Lady ofGuadalupe decision.

The EEOC routinely issues guidance, which does not have theforce of law, on a number of workplace issues. Guidance isroutinely relied upon by employers, courts, and investigatorsreviewing charges of discrimination in interpreting the federalanti-discrimination laws.

The Biden EEOC, with new leadership, could further modify orwithdraw the proposed guidance or simply refocus its enforcementefforts differently.

On March 5, the Massachusetts SJC ruled in DeWeese-Boyd v.Gordon College that the "ministerial exception" doesnot apply to an associate professor of social work at a privateChristian liberal arts college, and she should be allowed to pursueher claims that the school retaliated against her for hervocal opposition to the school's LGBTQ+ policies. The SJCspecifically noted that the facts of Hosanna Taborand Our Lady of Guadalupe were "materiallydifferent" in that DeWeese-Boyd was neither hired to be aminister or a teacher of religion in a primary or secondary schoolenvironment as in those cases. In Hosanna-Tabor, theemployer was an Evangelical Lutheran church and school, and theplaintiff was a "called" teacher, who had undergoneformal religious training and accepted a formal call to religiousservice. She and her employer both viewed her as a minister,and her employment documents described her as such. The twoteachers in Our Lady of Guadalupe worked in an elementaryschool where they taught all subjects, including religion. Theywere expected not only to teach the faith to their students butalso to guide them "by word and deed" toward the goal ofliving their lives in accordance with the Catholic faith. Theyprayed with the students, attended Mass with them, and prepared thechildren for participation in other religious activities.

As a Professor, DeWeese-Boyd was not ordained or commissioned,not held out as a minister, was not required to undergo formalreligious training, pray with her students, participate in or leadreligious services, take her students to chapel services, or teacha religious curriculum.

The SJC also rejected Gordon College's argument that all itsemployees should come under the ministerial exception as too broadan interpretation which would allow religious organizations tosimply ignore secular anti-discrimination laws.

The Supreme Court will likely see more cases of this nature inthe coming years as both religious and non-religious organizationsgrapple with the inevitable tug that comes with balancing therights of all.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

Read more here:
First Amendment Versus The Civil Rights Act: A Clash Of Titans - Employment and HR - United States - Mondaq News Alerts