Brief 10: Freedom of Information Act

Blacklisted for filing too many FOIA requests? Sounds crazy, absolutely absurd! It happened, however, to Nick Turse, a journalist for theintercept.com.  Mid-April, the Department of Defense issued its annual "Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer Report to the Department of Justice." Included in said report was the following statement:

"DoD has continued to improve its administration of the FOIA and develop new initiatives to further streamline our FOIA processes and promote opens and transparency. . . Despite their best efforts to provide helpful details, great customer service and efficient responses [components] still overwhelmed by one or two requests who try to monopolize the system by filing a large number of requests or submitting disparate requests in groups which require a great deal of administrative time to adjudicate."

According to Turse, one of the persons aforementioned is him. The report concluded that his requests made up 308 cases for the fiscal year. "Who would do such a thing?" Turse remarks. "What type of monster files this many requests?" He goes on to insinuate the DoD never inquired his reasons for doing so. 

Turse filed 53 of those requests with AFRICOM, inquiring about their "temporary facilities. . . what you and I might refer to as American bases on the African continent." Eric Elliot, a spokesperson for AFRICOM, emailed back to say:

"Let me see what I can give you in response to your request for a complete list of facilities. There will [be] some limits on the details we can provide because of the scope of the request." 

Turse alleges he was given the run around time and time again. After filing the initial request in 2012, and pestering for "answers", he received some feedback in 2013. It wasn't to his satisfaction, and he was told to file again. "After three and a half years of waiting for this information, I received one page of unclassified but still partially redacted (not to mention relatively useless) material about the only official acknowledged U.S. base in Africa." 

His relationship with AFRICOM somehow worsened. When attempting to write a piece on U.S. troops concerning criminality and bad behavior, Turse claims to have been pretty well ignored. "I called Benson, the AFRICOM media chief, 32 times on a single business day from a phone line that identified me by name. He never picked up." Benson obviously, mistakenly answered when Turse mischievously called with a different number immediately after. Because of this behavior, Turse was forced to put the piece together by issuing FOIA request after FOIA request. 

"That didn't win me any friends at AFRICOM." claimed Turse. 

Nick Turse is one of many journalists who go out of their way to get information from the government only to be given the run-around, or receive documents that are often times redacted and classified. It's good to have the FOIA, but unfortunately it doesn't totally insure transparency.

Original Testimony by Nick Turse here

Brief 9: College Media

A story about black mold may have led to the termination of a campus newspaper adviser in West Virginia. Fairmont State University's campus paper The Columns was headed by Michael Kelley in 2014, but that changed shortly after he and his staff made the university's nonchalant response to the campus's black mold a public controversy. 

Kelley filed a grievance against FSU after the university claimed his termination had nothing to do with the story, but instead because his contract had ended. Tyler Wilson, the paper's managing editor, and editor in chief Jacob Buckland, published a series of stories which entailed student's concerns about the mold problem. "We didn't expect [the university] to [terminate Kelley] because that's insanely unintelligent on their end," said Wilson. 

Said stories included the test results of swabbed areas that "looked disgusting", and the testimony of a student who alleged her hospitalization was "a result of mold exposure from living on campus." After the publications, one department head "became hostile," notes Buckland, and also allegedly threatened to withdraw funding. Kelley said the same individual would only allow the paper to continue if it "contained nothing controversial."

Kelley received an email shortly after the publications which entailed the end of his one-year appointment, which contradicted his belief that his appointment was three-times as long. However, "according to a contract signed by Kelley on October 21, 2014 confirming his hire as a temporary assistant professor of journalism, Kelley's position was a temporary, full-time, 9-month position beginning August 11, 2014 and ending May 17, 2015. Kelley apparently misunderstood the terms of his hire, which he thought would come in three, separate 9-month contracts. Such contracts he never received. 

Donna Long, a member of the selection committee, stated her misunderstanding as well, saying "that the job posting specified a three-year appointment." The university has offered up more reasons that may have affected Kelley's termination: budget cuts, loss of students, program success, and so on. Because Kelley wasn't promised three years in his initial contract, the university is safe in implying that it is the cause of his termination and not the stories they may have desired to censor. 

"Really, anything that has the truth in it has been attempted to be muzzled and stifled by senior-level administration on campus." - Tyler Wilson

Original Story by Trisha LeBoeuf here

Brief 8: Investigative Journalism

"It is not legal to sell human body parts whether they're adult or fetal at any age." said David Daleiden during an interview with Bill O'Reilly. 

Daleiden recently came under heavy scrutiny for his work in The Center for Medical Progress. During 2015, CMP released controversial videos that allegedly depicted persons who work for Planned Parenthood attempting to sale the body parts of aborted fetuses. The videos are from a series titled, "Human Capital." One undercover sting concerned Doctor Deborah Nucatola (Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood.)   

Watch Video

During his interview in July of 2015 on the O'Reilly Factor, Daleiden was asked about said sting:

O'Reilly: "What did you tell her about why you wanted to speak with her?" 

Daleiden: "Our investigators from CMP were posing as representatives of a middle-man biotech company that was wanting to partner with Planned Parenthood clinics in order to purchase the body parts of the babies they abort, and in doing that, we were modeling ourselves after real life middle-man biotech companies, multiple ones that are partnered with Planned Parenthood clinics across the country."

O'Reilly goes on to ask if Nucatola actually said she (or Planned Parenthood) would sell the body parts, to which Daleiden gives an extensive denial, insisting that she detailed how the clinic she worked for in LA was indeed partnered with a biotech company and had been supplying aborted fetal parts to said company.

An article published by Huffington Post yesterday says, "Eleven agents [from the California Department of Justice] seized four computers and hundreds of hours of video footage from David Daleiden's apartment." Because of the controversial nature of the videos released in 2015, a "political uproar" has ensued. "Several Republican-controlled states as well as Republicans in the U.S. Congress [are trying] to halt funding for the women's health organization. They also renewed debate over abortion rights."

The undercover videos are currently under review, and Daleiden is under criminal investigation in Texas. In February, "he was indicted for tampering with a government record and violating prohibition on the purchase and sale of human body parts." 

Charles LiMandri, a civil attorney in California, insisted the seizure came "out of nowhere." Until now, Daleiden had apparently been cooperative with authorities during civil investigations. Daleiden and the CMP believe Planned Parenthood are breaking the law. They have been working on the expose for three years and had plans to take their findings to law enforcement. The videos they posted, however, brought the controversy down on their heads a little premature to that plan. 

"Under federal law, donated human fetal tissue may be used for research, but profiting from its sale is prohibited." -Huffington Post 

To date, Planned Parenthood have denied the accusations by the CMP, and have labeled the investigation "politically motivated."


Huffington Post Article 

Brief 7: Exploiting A News Story

TLC . . . a channel which once aired programs relevant to its title (The Learning Channel). Any more, a viewer is more likely to learn how to conduct a seance as opposed to what the medical term fetus in fetu refers to. TLC is no stranger to exploitation. The network has ran specials on everything from the world's largest mother to the life of conjoined twins. Its most recent attempt at exploitation, however, is probably the most shameful.  

Switch gears to 2008 when an Arkansas family landed themselves a series which went through a few title changes in its seven year run. TLC's 17 Kids and Counting stared Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, and lest we forget, their 17 children. America experienced first hand what it was like to be a devout Christian family who was as close to godliness as any family could possibly be. 18 Kids and Counting soon followed as did the final series when the 19th child was born (no need to insert the title.)  

America was in love. TLC had a hit that could go on for what was looking like eternity. With the way sequels are milked these days, who knows how many more title changes the series may have been granted. Sadly, the facade of perfection was broken when the world was let on to a Duggar family secret in 2015. Jim Bob and Michelle defended their eldest son Josh when the public scorned him for having molested five of his younger sisters as a teen. TLC cancelled their million dollar baby.  

Enter 2016, your watching a show about 600lb individuals and you see an advertisement featuring a few familiar faces. The Duggar sisters are speaking of hurt and forgiveness, and most importantly, moving on. Then, the announcement: New series coming to TLC, Jill and Jessa: Counting On. . .What?! 

If you're a viewer, you probably got a good chuckle at the ridiculousness of said preview. If you're an advertiser, apparently your pulling your ads during the show's time slot. If you're TLC, you may be in the process of cancelling the obvious attempt at exploiting a tragic event turned tabloid news story.  

Although Jill and Jessa are still drawing in millions of viewers, the number of advertisers is dropping rapidly. According to Forbes, 

"Brand are fleeing the radioactive reality show in droves. Representatives from Credit Karma, X Out, Cici’s Pizza, and the UPS store expressed that the Jill & Jessa ads were part of a large advertising purchase and were not intentionally chosen. All stated they will no longer run ads on any shows about the Duggar family. Other major companies that have abandoned Jill & Jessa include Verizon and the RCN corporation."

Advertisers aren't willing to take the risk of offending their customers. Forbes also noted that the cancellation of 19 Kids and Counting cost the network $19 million. What a price to pay! Often times, exploitation of a news story leads to the big bucks, which is why it is done. In this case, the future, outright exploitation of the Duggar children's case may or may not continue to make TLC rich. 

Forbes Article

Photo Credit: tlc.com

Brief 6: Copyright and Fair Use

The first thing that comes to mind when discussing violation of copyright/fair use laws may typically be a situation where one individual profits from another individuals copyrighted work. This is especially a concern in the music industry, but have you ever heard of one band member suing another for this very reason? The following lawsuit was complicated by several other issues, but the root of the matter was indeed a copyright issue.

Left to Right: Klepaski, Burnley, Fincke and Szelga

In January 2009, Benjamin Burnley, Aaron Fincke, and Mark Klepaski enter into a Band Agreement for the band Breaking Benjamin. Martin F. Frascogna took an in depth look at the case and noted a few of the rules in said agreement are:

-Burnley started the group
-Burnley is the creative force behind the group
-Burnley dictates the groups decisions
-Burnley can dismiss a fellow band member for just cause

Section 5: Fincke and Klepaski hereby irrevocably assign to Burnley and and all rights, title and interest that Fincke and Klepaski may have in the band name Breaking Benjamin as well as any and all logo(s) and/or trademarks in any manner collected thereto. 

"Therefore . . . Fincke and Klepaski have assigned their rights to the Breaking Benjamin trademark to Burnley. Further meaning Burnley can be the only surviving member of Breaking Benjamin [and] Fincke and Klepaski can NOT use the name Breaking Benjamin. If future albums are to be released, Benjamin Burnley must be on the album and must authorize the use of the trademark."

The following year in March, Breaking Benjamin allegedly entered into a Recording Agreement with Hollywood Records. Burnley, however, had also allegedly told the band's attorney, Fincke, and Klepaski "that he didn't want to proceed with the Recording Agreement." Fincke and Klepaski had signed the band into the agreement, thus making it void from the start since Burnley had not agreed to do so. But where was Burnley? 

Burnley fell ill in 2009 with an unknown illness believed to be brought on by years of severe alcoholism. The mystery illness still pangs him to this day, and it ultimately how the problem arose. Burnley claims to have not been present when Hollywood Records approached Fincke and Klepaski about remixing a song the band had recorded for Halo 2, a track which was released in 2008 but was not featured on any of the band's previous albums. 

Shallow Bay: The Best of 
Breaking Benjamin

Album depicts scan of 
Burnley's brain after illness

Fincke and Klepsaki signed the agreement. An alternate version of "Blow Me Away"was released in Burnley's absence on the album Shallow Bay: The Best of Breaking Benjamin. Burnley sought arbitration in June of 2011 after firing the two members in question, desiring $250,000 in compensation to be paid by said members. Florian Schneider of Billboard says, "Burnley claims that Fincke and Klepaski were offered $100, 000 by the band's label to approve the revised version of the song, and that the pair did not inform him or the band's management of the remix. The accused denied the allegations, but lost the case. 

In 2013 the following announcement was posted on the band's website:

"The dispute between Benjamin Burnley, who is the sole founder, primary musician, singer and songwriter for the band Breaking Benjamin, and two of the band's ex-members has been resolved. Benjamin Burnley retains his right to use his band name and Breaking Benjamin will continue." 

Burnley's comment:

"I am pleased to finally put this matter behind me and focus on the future for Breaking Benjamin. I wish to express my never ending love and gratitude to the best fans in the world for their undying love and support. Words cannot express my love to you all! Thank you!" 

Burnley reassembled Breaking Benjamin with four new members added to the band. In June of 2015, the band released Dark Before Dawn, the band's fifth studio album. Burnley takes pride in his work, and it was obvious in his later comments he did not approve of the remixed version of "Blow Me Away," a song he created specifically for Halo 2.  He is an avid gamer, and wrote the song because of his love for the Halo series. Burnley claims to write and mix most of his work to a very high standard, so it was no wonder he sued. 

It is clear why Burnley won this dispute, despite the mindset of his bandmates: "Hey, let's not consult the guy who's name is in the band title!" It was all a matter of contract wording. Fincke and Klepaski entered the band into Recording Agreement with Hollywood Records and received compensation for the release of work they didn't have full legal rights to according to the Band Agreement. It seems they stole their own work, but they are the ones who gave Burnley the right to sue them for doing so. I guess taking advantage of Burnley's illness didn't pay off in the end. 

It's clear which version Breaking Benjamin fans approved of.

Remix (103, 373 views)

Original (20, 443, 206 views)

Sources:
Techdirt
Loudwire
Billboard

Brief 5: Reporter's Privilege

"A shield law provides statutory protection for the "reporters' privilege" -- legal rules which protect journalists against the government requiring them to reveal confidential sources or other information." -SPJ.org

Does creating/commenting on internet content give one the right to call upon a state's shield law for protection? In an ever-changing, multimedia based world this is certainly a legitimate question. Is there a divide between the blogger and the traditional journalist? 

In 2011, three separate judges had to answer theses questions, and found journalists and journalism are not what they used to be. In the case of Too Much Media v. Hale, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled the state's shield  laws did not protect individuals who post comments on online message boards. Meanwhile in Hawaii, the weekly newspaper MauiTime looked to the state's shield law to fight a subpoena which required the publication to turn over subscriber information of every commenter on a story on the paper's website. "Both cases highlight the challenges of applying statutes written to protect traditional news media when evolving technology has enabled more people to work as journalists" -Aaron Mackey

In the case of New Jersey, it was a matter of what constitutes a journalist. Mackey noted, "The decision recognized that online commenters who post on message boards are similar to individuals who write letters to the editor, a group of people who historically have not received protection fro the sheild law."  The lawsuit concerned defamation. Shelbee Hale was accused of defaming Too Much Media with comments on an internet message board concerning the company's leaders. Hale tried to invoke the state's shield law, but the court did not recognize her as part of a publication, and thus, she did not qualify for protection. 

"The law requires those seeking its protection to have some connection to a publication -- online or otherwise -- that is similar to traditional media," says Mackey.  

In Hawaii, the issue wasn't much different. When police subpoenaed the MauiTime for subscriber information regarding those who'd commented on a post by the publication, Editor Tommy Russo sought to invoke the state's shield law. A commenter had threatened the life of a police officer depicted in a video posted by the editor, but the subpoena was withdrawn. 

According to Mackey, the incident worried Jeffery Portnoy, a media lawyer in Hawaii. "The state had recently passed a two-year extension of the law, which includes protections for online journalists reporting on matters of public interest. The govenor signed the bill after some hesitation, Portnoy said." Ultimately, Portnoy's concern was with the extension of said law to internet commenters. 

There is much room for concern. Who decides what constitutes as journalism or a journalist for that matter? Everyone is not qualified to act as a journalist, are they? What if every post we made on the internet could be considered "journalism?" And, when is it appropriate for a journalist to give up information about clients? A death threat seems more than admissible to the situation in Hawaii. 

In the past, these questions were all left to the state, but that may change, for "not all shields are created equal." according to Josh Stearns and Chris Palmer of FreePress.net, "Some states limit coverage to "professional reporters," while others protect freelancers, book authors, electronic publishers and educators."

A federal shield law has been in the words since 2005 as The Act of Free Flowing Information. Here are the details of that act from FreePress.net:

The issue, however, is not resolved here. This act "limits the scope of who qualifies as a covered person." Should the federal government answer the prior questions? "Policymakers want to limit protections to those who make a significant amount of their income and livelihood from journalism, but the federal shield law should cover anyone who provides journalistic services, even if a person is not professionally or regularly employed as a journalist." says Stearns and Palmer.

According to Kurt Wimmer in an article on the Huffington Post, "Like any bill, the Act must define its terms. The attorney-client privilege only applies to "attorneys," a defined term. The doctor-patient privilege only applies to "doctors," a defined term. The journalists' privilege applies to "covered journalists" when they have received a demand for testimony -- an extremely expansive term defined in the Act as anyone working for a journalism outlet (explicitly including bloggers), freelancers with an intent to publish, and anyone a judge finds should be covered in the interests of justice."

As of 2016, the fight for federal shield law is still on. In 2014, an amendment was approved which forbade the Justice Department from "spending money to force a journalist to testify about a source," says Cora Currier of the Columbia Journalism Review.

“I think we’re really close, and the Risen situation really highlights the need for the law,” - David Cuillier, President of the Society of Professional Journalists

Sources:
Columbia Journalism Review
Reporters Committee 
Free Press
Huffington Post
Society of Professional Journalists

Brief 4: Plagiarism in News Media

Buzzfeed. You know, the "listicle" site, and those numerous, sub-cateogry channels on YouTube with all the completely relate-able videos for young adults? Yes, that's the one. Buzzfeed sets the bar of flexibility high in the non-traditional media, but this sociability would certainly  bring the company a juicy scandal at some point!

On the About section of the company's site, Buzzfeed describes itself as:

"A cross-platform, global network for news and entertainment that generates six billion views each month. BuzzFeed creates and distributes content for a global audience and utilizes proprietary technology to continuously test, learn and optimize."

Despite "creating" exuberant amounts of original content, in July of 2014 Buzzfeed found themselves publicly apologizing for the misconduct of one of their most popular political journalists, Benny Johnson.  

Newsy Video

From an article titled Top Plagiarisms Scandals of 2014, journalist Johnathan Bailey said Johnson, "Was a series of firsts. He was the first to be targeted by Our Bad Media, he was the first major plagiarism scandal to only affect non-traditional media and he was the first to have the pall of plagiarism cast upon him, but to find new work so quickly."

Benny Johnson

Buzzfeed had originally stood by him, but the evidence continued to pile up. The company ended up conducting an investigation of its own. It found that of nearly 500 posts by Benny Johnson, 41 contained blatant plagiarism. According to the Washington Post, Johsnon had taken material from other media outlets such as The Guardian, Wikipedia, and even Yahoo Answers. He hadn't properly attributed his sources, and his boss was shocked to find that 10% of Johnson's "original" work (as he had called it) was indeed plagiarized. 

Excerpt from the Washington Post article Benny Johnson Got Fired From Buzzfeed. You Will Believe What Happened Next:

"On a blog called Our Bad Media, Blippoblappo and another Twitter personality, @Crushingbort, named three examples of Benny’s work that cribbed from Wikipedia, Yahoo! Answers, and other sources. “It was so easy to spot this stuff, you have to conclude that there was essentially no editorial oversight,” they wrote in an e-mail to The Post."

Buzzfeed had to be crushed to lose such a hip, young personality. The company revered him for his ability to make politics into a form of click-bait. Benny Johnson was exactly what the new generation wanted in a journalist. To be fair, however, Johnson didn't really do anything the current generation attributes much criminality to. In fact, his ability to bounce back after the scandal surprised the media. Bailey wrote:

"Other famous plagiarists such as Jonah Lehrer and Jayson Blair were essentially blackballed from the industry and have been unable to quickly find new work. However, Johnson not only had a new job within three months, but he was reporting again within four. This has led many to wonder if attitudes toward plagiarism have changed and if, in journalism, it isn’t being treated as seriously of a transgression as it was just a few years ago."

According to the Washington Post, Johnson had made himself into a "Washington media-insider" in under two years. He brought viewers to the boring side of Buzzfeed, and according to the man himself, "Somebody’s got to make the first Joe Biden GIF listicle.” 

Maybe his "listicle" journalism is scoffed on by traditional media, but people want to be entertained by their news. If people want their politicians to be summarized into a photographic/GIF list similar to “The 25 Most Awkward Cat Sleeping Positions”, then that's just what Benny Johnson is going to continue to give them. 

You can read Buzzfeed's apology here
*Articles linked within blog entry

Brief 3: Advertising Ethics

One of the most important things I learned studying Mass Communications is the hierarchy of needs to which advertising caters. There are 15 of those, but when speaking of advertising ethics, there's really only one that does a ton of feather-ruffling: No. 1is the need for sex. Perhaps one of the best possible advertisements to use as an example are the racy Carl's Jr. (AKA Hardee's) ads.

"BBQ's Best Pair" 

Even I can get a good chuckle from Hardee's ridiculous manipulation of the first need. It's commercials like these where an audience really has to stand back and ask what's really being sold: A heart-stopping cheeseburger or something way more provocative? I was really hoping what the advertisements were going for was exactly this element of comedy, but I may have been wrong.

An article on Fox News station KTVU claimed, "The 64-year-old chief executive says the ads "cut through the clutter" and make an impression on the younger men the burger chains court."

While it cannot be denied this statistic may hold merit, it's surely not true that no one of the opposite gender or of a different age eats at this restaurant. With these particular ads, some of us may not be sure we haven't stumbled upon the triple x channel whilst channel surfing.

"Borderball" 

When I witnessed my first racy Hardee's commercial, it did come on late at night, however, I could have been mistaken as to what the ad was promoting had I not watched til the end, or God forbid, have gotten distracted enough not to see the cheeseburger. There is a difference between selling pornography to an audience and selling something completely unrelated when using the same concept. This is especially true if that something is for all ages. There is no mistaking a late night advertisement for pornographic material, unless there are ginormous cheeseburgers involved.

This is a great ethical concern. There is the ongoing argument against regulation of sex in media, so there is censorship. The problem with censorship is asking what is considered inappropriate to what viewers. Indecent and pornographic are hardly the same thing, but where is the line drawn?


Using an overt sexual theme is not the only advertising method used by this fast food chain. Advertisers use all sorts of methods to appeal to certain audiences. One of those is the use of celebrity endorsements. It seems to work well with all ages, but Hardee's is not only riling feminists everywhere, they're also making celebrities left and right!

"Drive In"

According to CEO Andy Pudzer, "We have a history of picking these young women before they hit their peak. We put Kate Upton in an ad a month before she got the cover for Sports Illustrated. At the time we picked her, we just said, "This is a beautiful woman." . . . We get a lot of actresses, whose names I won't tell you, who contact us, who we don't end up using in the ad because they're not right for the brand."

Another article from Fox News, Hardees Ad Steaming Up TVs and Tempers:

Article

Upton wasn't the only one "right for the brand." Kim Kardashian got her very own customized ad as well, and Pudzer had this to say about her:

"We used Kim Kardashian in an ad. But Kim really couldn't eat the burgers. Luckily, we had a salad we were promoting, so we used Kim in the salad ad. But if we had not been promoting a salad, we probably never would've done an ad with Kim, because she wasn't good at eating the burger. She's too tiny. She's really little."

"Getting Clean"

Yes, she sounds perfect for the brand. None of the other women in the previous ads were "tiny" or "little", it wasn't ridculous at all to see them holding and opening wide for a behemoth cheeseburger, but I digress.

Perhaps, the issue should not be summarized by how little these women are wearing, but by what they're selling while not wearing it. I personally find it as comical as it is ludacrious, but I can see the deception of the ads. I'm not so sure what it is. I do know this, however: Eating fast food is more likely to land those "younger men" with congestive heart failure than Kate Upton. Also, women of such stature probably don't pound down burgers bigger than their heads. Not to say they couldn't or even wouldn't.

Brief 2: Tabloid News - Redefining a Murderer

Smoking hot in tabloid news is the decade-old case of Steven Avery. After spending 18 years in prison for a wrongful conviction of sexual assault, Avery was sent back after a mere four years as a free man. In 2007, Avery was convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach. A controversial documentary titled Making a Murderer hit Netflix in December of 2013, and since Avery's name has become a headline hit. 

I've followed this case, not as adamantly as some, but one tabloid in particular that can't keep Avery's name out of their mouth is People Magazine. Just when the Avery-craze began, People posted an article about the topic fresh on viewers mind's: the jury. On Jan 5 the publication posted an article titled, Dismissed Steven Avery Juror Tells PEOPLE Jury Members Were Related to a Local Cop and a County Employee. To date, the article has been shared 23k times. The source of information was a juror from Avery's murder trial. Richard Mahler had been dismissed during deliberation for a family emergency. He told People:

"After the trial, I found out....[one juror] was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff's deputy. . . Another juror, his wife works for the Manitowoc County Clerk's Office."

The article begins and ends on a controversial note. The source says he spent four hours deliberating with fellow jurors, whom he claimed were at this standing: 7 innocent, three guilty, and two undecided. 

Another article on Jan 30 includes a snapshot of a letter Avery wrote to his supporters. People states what the note reads, and mocks Avery's handwriting. This is to be expected of tabloid news. It's just another reason why it's often taken with no more than a grain of salt. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop people from reading it. 

This publication has continued to follow the buzz, posting articles that intentionally ruffle the feathers of both anti and pro-Avery readers. Although the source for this article wouldn't be considered to distant from the case, the same cannot be said for that of another article from Feb 02. 

Steven Avery's Brother Gives New Details About Night of Teresa Halbach's Murder in First-Ever Interview, opened as expected. The article begins by claiming Earl Avery, the brother of Steven Avery who I was completely oblivious to, "has some unanswered questions." First of all, what kind of credibility can be given to a brother who didn't ask his questions almost a decade ago when Avery was facing murder charges? This tabloid article is the epitome of this new form's downfall. The hogwash presented here is laughable at best. 

"We drove right through [where] that car was supposed to be," Earl told People in regards to the vehicle of Haibach. "It wasn't there that night of the 31st. We were rabbit hunting." 

Apparently this confession deserved no merit when Steven was on trial. People calls this an "alarming statement," while prosecutors sit back and continue to roll their eyes. Meanwhile, in an article by the National Enquirer, the same story carries a bit more weight. It adds that Earl, "said he hasn't see his brother in a decade -- thanks to Steven accusing Earl and other brother Chuck of having some role in Teresea's death -- but the siblings spoke for the first time last week."

"He told me that his lawyers told him to say that . . . and he told me that he was frustrated that we wouldn't talk to him or go up to see him. . . I guess blood is blood, and you can't change that. Life is too short." 

This is an interesting addition to the already massively controversial case. However, it was well documented in the docu-series that the Avery family aren't strangers to backstabbing. It's a good thing, as I have said before in regards to this case, that speculation alone is not grounds for conviction.


Sources
Avery Juror
Avery Supporters
Avery Brother (People)
Avery Brother (NatEnq)

Brief 1: Bias in Cable Television

The danger of news media creating a prejudiced jury is very real. True-crime television shows are gaining popularity, but few are as damning as irresponsible media coverage of ongoing murder trials. Crime is sensational, and according to Ray Williams of Psychology Today, “Media studies show that bad news far outweighs good news by as much as seventeen negative news reports for every on good news report . . . Humans seek out news of dramatic, negative events.” Words like “alleged” and “speculate“ may keep journalist and networks out of hot-water, but they do little in the way of preventing bias in viewers. 

No one in news media plays on that psychology quite like Nancy Grace. Daniel D’Addario of Time Magazine said, “Today’s highbrow true crime is full of visceral, passionate emotionality; it has the you-be-the-judge rhythms of Dateline and the jazzy verve of Nancy Grace trying to convince her viewers that one or another chosen target should fry.” In fact, HLN’s own had an online petition calling for her removal from the network. Said petition claimed:

“Nancy Grace does not produce fair and unbiased journalism, as outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics  . . . Grace is guilty of broadcasting biased and prejudicial opinions AS FACTS in high profile cases.”

Grace has given her two cents on a number of “high profile” cases including those of defendants Jodie Arias and the recently popular Steven Avery. Her televised personality is spastic to say the very least. This might be attributed to her notorious, highly speculative statements. During the case of Jodi Arias, Grace was there to give her weekly analysis. On week ten, she made the following statement:

“Who in their right mind packs five or six huge gas cans, filled with gas, for a long trip by car? No body, she obviously did that so there would be no record at any gas station by credit card or debit card, or video surveillance of her stopping for gas That’s very clear, or worse, burning a body or burning evidence.”

It isn't necessary to point out every thing wrong with televising such a statement regarding a defendant during an ongoing trial. Some might say it’s a good thing speculation alone doesn’t prove guilt, but this type of journalism plants ideas in the public's mind that cannot be removed nor easily overcame.

Tim Rutten in an article from the Los Angeles Times stated that Grace, “appears to have never met someone arrested who she believed should not be charged, nor anyone charged who should not be convicted.” He begins the article entailing a denial to sequester the jury in the trial of Conrad Murray - the doctor accused of causing the death of Michael Jackson. Murray’s lawyer, J. Michael Flanagan, made the request because of a very specific threat: Nancy Grace. Unfortunately, the judge denied the request because, “the court could not afford and supervise a jury for the many weeks the trial would probably take.”

It is arguable that few people have been the victims of said injustice than that of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey. Both Avery and Dassey were convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach because of a circumstance that draws a frightening parallel to that of the West Memphis Three. The media took and ran with the portrait painted of both defendants in a pre-trail, later redacted confession by Dassey who, like Jesse Miskelly, was proven to have an IQ in the low seventies. Much like in the case of the West Memphis Three, Avery and Dassey were televised as horrific, heartless monsters. Ironically enough, the confession(s) didn’t add up with the hard evidence provided by the prosecution. None of them were even allowed in Avery’s trial, but it was arguably far too late to erase the media impact or sequester the jury. Avery and Dassey were both found guilty of Halbach's muder.

Now, post-trail, Grace is living up to her expectations. US Magazine quotes her, “I think he's guilty of the murder because he told me to my face that Teresa was there in his auto salvage pit the day she goes missing around 2 'o clock.” There is much controversy surrounding the evidence presented or not in the Netflix documentary Making a Murderer which entails Avery’s case. But in no way is it new information, or an admission of guilt to claim that Halbuck was indeed on Avery’s property the day of her disappearance. Who can walk into any trial for Avery without this bias which continues to grow. 

Avery was in a civil lawsuit with those who had formerly been involved with his conviction of rape, a crime which he was exonerated of years before being convicted of murder. Avery has made several appeals as he did with the rape conviction, but his reputation as a killer is not disappearing any time soon. 

There are going to be those who always believe Avery, Dassey, Arias and the West Memphis Three are guilty of all the crimes of which they are/were accused. For that the media receives some amount of credit, but small or large any amount is too much. Media cannot be completely unbiased, however, it is the job of journalists everywhere to report the facts, and not fuel ignorance or speculation. Someone should get around to letting Nancy Grace in on this ideology. 

Links of Cited Articles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArPM41tK_Qo (15:40)

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/firenancygrace/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/making-a-murderer-nancy-grace-856328

http://time.com/4166567/making-a-murderer-netflix-petition/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201012/why-we-love-bad-news

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/nancy-grace-steven-avery-told-me-to-my-face-that-he-was-at-the-pit-w161667

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/23/opinion/la-oe-rutten-nancy-grace-20110723