COM 150: Term paper topics

By now I think most of you have topics for your term papers. We mentioned several in class last week, and I posted a list to the blog last semester. Most of the suggestions there are similar to what I suggested in class.

But I promised to have some more suggestions in class Monday. Here are a few that have worked well for students in the past:

What's it like to work for Google? Like other Silicon Valley firms, Google puts a premium on creativity. (Including April Fool's Day pranks. Their theory is high-tech workers thrive on it, and they try to create working conditions that stimulate creativity. How do they go about it? How well does it work?

Robert Fisk and Osama bin Laden. Robert Fisk, a controversial Middle East correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, interviewed bin Laden in 1997. Fisk's account of the interview is long, but it's well worth reading. How did he get the interview? What is his attitude as a journalist? How does he practice the craft -- i.e. what does he do to get a story? What are his professional ethical values? What did he learn from bin Laden?

Is the Billy Goat Curse a money-maker? Everyone -- at least Cubs fans -- knows about the "curse" when a goat was denied admission to Wrigley Field in 1945. How does it contribute to the Cubbies' image? How does it make money for the Billy Goat Tavern in downtown Chicago? Is it really a curse, or a brilliant marketing gimmick? You'll be surprised.

How does ________________ (*insert name of celebrity here) practice brand management? A brand is the image a corporation or a product has with the public. Is Brittney Spears a brand? Beyonce? P-Diddy? Name the artist or celebrity. Some are very good at it. Others aren't. Some might get better at it if they paid attention in rehab and keep the plug in the jug. Look at how they do -- or don't -- keep a consistent image with the public.

COM 150: Of bears and brands in Berlin

Here's a different marketing ploy from Germany, where a three-month-old polar bear cub at the Berlin Zoo has captured the hearts of children, adults, the media ... and practically everyone who wants to make a Euro. Reports the magazine Der Spiegel (which means "the mirror" in English):

Hundreds of journalists from all over the world came to see the little bear make his first appearance in public last Friday, and 58 percent of Germans are following his progress as he grows up, according to a new survey conducted for the German television station N24. It's safe to say he's one of the most famous living Germans.

And, like many superstars, he is rapidly becoming a brand. But, unlike say J-Lo or Madonna, the three-month-old bear is not in control of how his image is being marketed. Is the tiny star being exploited for commercial and political gain?

Der Spiegel's answer, dated March 28, you bet he is. But first the backstory.

Knut was born Dec. 5 to an East German circus bear who had been rescued by the zoo. But she showed no interest in him (not unusual with animals in captivity). So he was bottle-fed through infancy by zookeeper Thomas Dörflein, and in recent weeks he's been shown to the public -- and the media. Der Spiegel reported March 23:

Berlin's favorite polar baby has finally made his first appearance for the public. Cute Knut wooed an excited audience of children, zoo visitors and journalists at Berlin Zoo Friday. Unfazed by the attention, he explored the outdoor enclosure and displayed his affection for his carer.

At ten in the morning, anticipation was running high. "Knut come out! Knut come out!", a group of children chanted impatiently.

Hundreds of Knut fans had made their way to Berlin Zoo on Friday morning to witness the polar bear cub's first public appearance. Children, journalists and normal zoo visitors alike were gripped by excitement as Berlin's favourite bear finally emerged in the outdoor bear enclosure.

The little fluffball was escorted by his carer Thomas Dörflein, zoo director Bernhard Blaszkiewitz and Germany's Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel.

Gabriel called Knut a political symbol in the climate change debate: "Hardly any animal symbolizes the consequences of climate change as clearly as the polar bear," he said. "No ice, no polar bear."

Gabriel, who has recently became Knut's "godfather," said that the little cub would be the mascot of the United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity conference in Bonn in May 2008.

Notice how the bear cub will be used to symbolize the UN biodiversity conference -- in much the same way the same way as the "swoosh" logo on Nike shoes, a sports mascot or the golden arches on a McDonald's fast food restaurant. That's called branding.

All kinds of businesses are getting in on the act, and Berlin Zoo stands to make a bundle off the bear cub. Der Spiegel in its March 28 story, headlined "Fur trade -- Cashing in on Cute Knut" (the name is pronounced like kun-oot), wonders if it's going too far:

Few would bear a grudge with Berlin Zoo making a bit of money out of the cub. The zoo is expecting record visitor numbers this year with 300,000 extra animal-lovers expected due to the new-found publicity -- 30,000 people came to see Knut this weekend alone.. Fair return, perhaps, for raising the polar bear by hand after his mother rejected him.

But what about Greenpeace using Knut as a poster cub for its campaign on global warming? The environmental lobby group demonstrated outside the Ministry of Economics and Technology in Berlin Tuesday, protesting about plans to build new power stations powered by brown coal, which produce high levels of CO2. Their banner, which referred to the plight of polar bears whose habitat is endangered by global warming, featured an image of a pensive-looking Knut standing in a pool of water, next to the slogan "Coal Kills Knut's Chums."

The German government has likewise begun using Knut for political gain. Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel accompanied Knut for a photo shoot on the bear's public debut, and has said he will use Knut as a mascot for a United Nations conference on bio-diversity to be held in Bonn in May 2008 -- even though Knut will not be quite so small and cuddly by then.

My opinion, for whatever its worth, is the zoo has a right to use Knut's image in any way that helps the zoo -- especially its educational mission -- but the zoo also has the obligation to register the brand and thus to control how it's used by others.

Here's how our textbook, Media Now by Joseph Straubhaar and Robert LaRose, defines brand identification: "... a product's name, design and symbols, which distinguish it from other products." So whatever else he may represent, "Cute Knut" is becoming part of the zoo's identity. And, according to Der Spiegel, he's making them some money:

Ironically, the Berlin Zoo itself was tardy to cash in on Knut's potential. The 2,400 Knut soft toys which went on sale Friday were already sold out by Monday, and the first Knut postcards didn't go on sale until Tuesday. The souvenirs weren't ready in time because the zoo was expecting Knut to go on show a week later than he did, the zoo's sales director Gerald Uhlich admitted Wednesday to the newspaper Berliner Zeitung.

Where all of this can lead is suggested by this story with a headline that tells it all -- "Companies cash in on Knut the German polar bear."-- It moved March 28 on the Reuters wire service. Here's the lede and the nut graf:

BERLIN, March 28 (Reuters Life!) - The euphoria around Berlin Zoos celebrity polar bear cub showed no sign of abating on Wednesday as a music label released a single called "Knut is Cute."

Pool Music has already sold 3,000 CDs priced at just under 6 euros ($8.01) each but faces tough competition from up to twelve competitors who have been circulating bear-related songs on the Internet.

"I know the number of other songs is growing but we were first," said a spokesman for Pool Music who said demand had far outstripped expectations and that the label had received orders from as far afield as the United States and Japan.

"Our song is different because it is sung by the polar bear himself, whereas the other songs are only about him," said the spokesman who declined to divulge the identity of the artist referred to as "Polar Bear."

The company has paid an agreed sum to Berlin Zoo, which registered the celebrity cub as an official brand this week.

The Reuters story also lays out some of the ethical considerations:

But the zoo says Knut should not be seen in financial terms.

"The zoo isn't a commercial enterprise but a cultural and scientific institution," said a Berlin Zoo spokesman.

"What is most important is the correct raising of the bear" a zoo spokesman said, adding it had ruled out selling Knut despite a deluge of offers from across the globe.

However, companies are keen to cash in on the cuddly character who has such a wide appeal.

On the one hand, the bear is a living creature. Is it right to exploit it for profit? On the other hand, the zoo has a message to get out to the public. Plenty of messages, in fact. About genetics and breeding endangered species, to name one thing. About global warming, to name another. So why not make a bundle on licensing Knut the polar bear's name and image, if it helps the zoo get those messages out.

In the meantime, Knut the bear is taking it all in stride. When he made his debut, Der Spiegel reported:

Despite the hordes of visitors, photographers, and camera crews, Knut the polar bear showed some real cool. Unfazed by all the attention, he leisurely explored the outside enclosure, running across the grass area, climbing up the rocks and dipping his paws into the water.

He also openly showed his affection for Thomas Dörflein. Just like a son with his father, Knut followed his carer around everywhere he went. Every now and then the two smooched or cuddled up together. Knut, who was born in December, has been raised on a bottle by Dörflein after the cub was rejected by his mother Tosca.

The close relationship between the two had been subject to criticism from animal rights activists, who claimed that Knut was being too "human," but that negative attitude seemed to have evaporated on Friday morning.

"Knut is incredibly cute," nine-year-old Christopher told SPIEGEL ONLINE, "I particularly like his white fur because it's so fluffy." His friend Selen, also aged nine, agreed and added: "But his face is really cute, too!" Selen was so taken by Knut that she even bought one of the Knut teddy bears which were on sale at the zoo.

Maybe the bear and the kids have the right attitude. But don't fail to notice one of them bought a teddy bear.

COM 209: Good 'color story' on Obama

It's been a while since it ran, but the online edition of The American Prospect had an excellent example of a "color story," which I define as a story that uses description and quotes to convey what it's like to be there at an event. Plus it's about Sen. Barack Obama's presidential announcement, an event many of you wrote up in February. So you'll be able to make comparisons. It's by Phoebe Connelly, editor of In These Times, a politically liberal magazine.

Notice how she combines description and quotation in a downtown Springfield bar:

At the Alamo II, a bar near the corner of 5th and Washington, Mike McCarthy ducked inside with his 11-year-old son, Will, to use the restroom and warm up. "I'm looking for leadership at the presidential and congressional level that is looking beyond the sound bite, beyond the next political poll," he said. McCarthy is a member of the Marine Reserves who served a tour in Iraq during the initial invasion in 2003. He usually votes Republican, but Obama's buzz has him considering voting Democratic. One of his concerns is the way the Iraq war is being handled, but he doesn't think leaving now is the answer. Most Americans, he feels, don't give enough thought to the complexity of developing a working democracy. "We've got a culture that's very short-sighted, many people have already put 9/11 behind them."

McCarthy was one of many out that morning who invoked the idea of being a part of history. "Will and I will look back and say, 'Hey, remember the time we went to Springfield and saw Senator Obama?'"

The bar was serving hot coffee for $2, but many customers opted for something stronger. Three young men, who'd decided a pitcher of beer was their best chance of staving off the cold, sat in the window. They were all seniors at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "I've never gone to a political rally before," said Kyle Mullen, "none of us have. It's the first time, and it's specifically because of him. Black people, white people -- everyone is a fan of him."

Better yet, read her in the original. Follow the link above.

COM 150: Discussion question, TV and reality

Here's the question: How does TV affect reality affect TV affect reality affect TV ...

And so on ad infinitum.

A couple of links:

Neil Postman, a media critic who taught at New York University, had this to say about the segue or transition, "Now ... this," that you hear so much on the TV news. Follow the links and see if what he said is true, and if it's true of the Internet too.

Here's a webpage with links about Postman's writing. Surf around and see what you learn. He died a couple of years ago, but he had a lot to say about TV, media, technology and how they combine to reflect the world we live in.

So ... to get back to the question ... how does TV affect our reality and how does reality affect TV? And vice versa.

COMM 317: Libel and New York Times v. Sullivan

Some links for tonight's class discussion ...

As you read the AP stylebook's discussion of media law, you'll notice most of it is about libel. Why? Probably because it's the point of law we're most likely to get in trouble with.

Here's some stuff to read, and a question for discussion.

On libel in general. We'll start by flipping through a self-paced tutorial on libel by Dorothy Bowles of the College of Communication, University of Tennessee at Knoxville. I would like this one even if I weren't a UTK alumnus who got his first byline in The UT Daily Beacon. Some of you have seen it before (in COMM 207 last semester). It will be a good review. Some of you haven't. It will be a good introduction.

A lot of the cases mentioned in Doctor Bowles' tutorial are from Tennessee (Well, why not? UTK is in Tennessee.) In Illinois, the law is similar. Here's what Hall Adams LCC, a Chicago law firm, says about what you have to prove to sue somebody for defamation -- which, for our purposes, is the same as libel -- in Illinois. Of course, we would turn it around -- we'd take it as what we'd better not do if we don't want to get sued for defamation!

On Times v. Sullivan. This court case isn't as much fun to read as the one about Jerry Falwell and the outhouse, but it set the basic standard for libel -- i.e. the "actual malice" test. Here's Justice Walter Brennan's opinion for the court. What does "actual malice" mean? Here's what Justice Brennan said: It is publication of something "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." So these are the words we still use, reckless disregard and actual malice. What they mean in individual cases will depend on the facts of the case.

Practice for final. You're the editor of The Daily Democrat Republican, a newspaper in a city not at all like Springfield. With the filing period for city elections coming up, you get an announcement from the Rev. J. Worthington Herringbone III, who is running for school board in the 7th School Board District on a platform of cleaning up vice and immorality among the youth of today. He says the current members of the Board of Education have failed to keep sex, drugs and rock-and-roll out of the schools (Tweed is nothing if not a child of the '60s), and 7th District school board member Katherine ("Kitty") Katz never got over the permissive attitudes toward education of her youth when she was high on drugs in San Francisco during the "summer of love." Katz has acknowledged her past use of "a little spliff now and then," and has said at school board meetings she thinks it gives her a measure of empathy she would not otherwise have as a board member but has no bearing on the issues that come before the school board.

A week after Pastor Herringbone announces, you get some grainy pictures that show two men embracing in the back seat of a taxi. One cannot be identified, but the other bears a strong resemblance to the good pastor, at least to the extent a low-resolution JPEG can bear a strong resemblance to anyone or anything. You call Pastor Herringbone to ask him about the picture, and he hangs up on you as soon as you get the quesstion out. How much of this stuff can you safely print? Why (or why not)? How do you balance the public's right to know and the public figures' right to be treated fairly in this case?

If I went ahead and published the photo, and it turned out to be an ad agency model from New York or Chicago instead of Pastor Herringbone, would he be able to sue me for defamation? Consider each of the factors mentioned by Hall Adams LCC.

COM 150 -- No, read this YouTube post last

Standing procedure -- to get a thread in chronological order, read a blog from the bottom up, right? I thought I'd wrapped up the thread last night. Then there were more stories in today's papers. By the way, both of them could suggest good term paper topics that I wasn't thinking of when I wrote your assignment sheet on term papers last night.

Anyway, there were two stories in The Washington Post today on YouTube.

The first looks like a Business Section story on YouTube and its competition. It's by Sam Diaz. Here's the gist of it:

YouTube has suffered a one-two punch in the past two weeks.

First, Viacom asked for $1 billion in a lawsuit against YouTube, saying the video Web site failed to remove copyright-protected clips. And yesterday, some of the most powerful businesses in Hollywood and on the Internet joined forces to create an online video site of their own, taking some of the Web's most popular videos with them.

YouTube is at a critical juncture. Since it launched in December 2005, it has ridden a wave of popularity that led Google to buy it in a $1.65 billion deal last year. But now the site must figure out its relationship with major traditional media companies while also forging its business, which to date has relied on advertising posted alongside videos.

The partnership announced yesterday by NBC, News Corp., AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft creates a first-of-its-kind alternative to some of YouTube's most popular content: TV and movie clips and music videos that were often posted there without permission. Unlike YouTube, the new competitor -- which says it will launch its Web site this summer -- has proposed a wide offering of videos, borrowing the iTunes model of offering some files for free and others, in this case movies and TV shows, for a fee.

YouTube has already had copyright issues. Read about 'em in the Post's story. But it is essentially a networking site, and can probably survive on user-generated content. Home videos of aunts, uncles, grandchildren, ferrets and cats. Read about that angle, too. It's a good story.

The other one, by media critic Howard Kurtz and staff writer Jose Antonio Vargas, is about the Hillary Clinton mash-up. The headline says it all: "A Brave New World of Political Skulduggery?" Well, suggests it all would be more accurate. It's the subhead in the second deck that says it: "Anti-Clinton Video Shows Ease of Attack In the Computer Age."

Reaction from the agency, and spokesmen for the Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns:

Thomas Gensemer, managing director of Blue State, a District [of Columbia]-based online strategy firm, said he fired de Vellis Wednesday night. "This is an unfortunate situation all around," he said. Gensemer said his firm has provided only technical assistance, not creative services, to the senator's campaign. Joe Rospars, Obama's new media director, is on leave from Blue State.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton declined to criticize the video. He said Blue State "handled it internally and we're satisfied with their response," adding: "We can't be held responsible for everything a supporter says and does. . . . We don't hold our opponents responsible for any of a number of negative YouTube ads up there about Senator Obama."

Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, said he finds it "disappointing that we all believed this ad was made by an average citizen expressing himself or herself, and that turned out not to be the case." Asked if the Obama camp should disavow the video, Wolfson said: "That's their decision."

Strategy behind these quotes? Oh, yes, you bet. Blue State and Obama trying to minimize the story, and Clinton trying to milk it for all it's worth.

Quotes I like best are from a guy at another online consulting firm and from Arianna Huffington, readers of whose blog tracked down the Blue State guy who did the ad on his own time. They're at the end of the story. Introductory newswriting students will recognize the "kicker" or twist at the end:

"If I were a traditional media strategist, an old-school guy, I'd think, 'See, you can't trust these crazy kids,' " said Jonah Seiger, who heads the online strategy firm Connections Media. "If one of my employees did this, I'd be outraged. It would reflect badly on my company. It can't help but reflect badly on my client. . . . There's no question that this causes embarrassment to Obama."

The imbroglio highlighted not just how the power to push a message has shifted from big campaign organizations to lone operators with rudimentary video skills, but how technology makes subterfuge easier to accomplish -- and easier to detect.

"You can be as anonymous as you want on the Internet," Huffington said. "But the minute you create something powerful that has impact, people are going to find out who it is."

COM 150: Read this YouTube ad post last. But read it!

In an earlier post to this blog, I mentioned the Huffington Post (which is also known as HuffPost, apparently, or HuffPo), as the blog that outed the guy who did the Hillary Clinton mash-up comparing her to Big Brother. And I said I'd get back to you with more on HuffPost or HuffPo.

First, you need to know HuffPo is an interactive blog. It's headed by Arianna Huffington, a kind of leftish author and second-tier celebrity of San Francisco, and it features posts -- which read like newspaper or magazine columns -- by name authors as well as average citizens who are allowed to join the blog and write in. The blurb in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia says "the HuffPost draws a balance between hard news commentary and coverage, popular culture and celebrity opinion features. It is also known for the wide range of opinions expressed by members of the public who are encouraged to comment on the original articles." But most of the opinions are liberal or left-wing.

Today the creator of the YouTube ad, a San Francisco creative who worked for an ad agency retained by rival candidate Barack Obama, posted his confession to HuffPo. And Huffington had a column headed "Who Created "Hillary 1984"? Mystery Solved!" It told how readers of her blog solved the mystery:

For the last two weeks, the Internet has been buzzing about the hottest online mystery since lonelygirl15: who was behind the "Hillary 1984" video mashup?

Some suspected right wing SwiftBoaters. Some speculated it was the work of disaffected Democratic consultants. One blogger even pointed the finger at me.

As the intrigue deepened, the mainstream media joined the fray, with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both being asked about the viral smash -- and much talk about the impact user-generated political videos will have on the 2008 race.


Well, today I can end the guessing. Last night, we sent out a challenge to the HuffPost team asking them to hit the phones and contact all their sources. As a result, we have learned the video was the work of Philip de Vellis, who was the Internet communications director for Sherrod Brown's 2006 Senate campaign, and who now works at Blue State Digital, a company created by members of Howard Dean's Internet Team.

Update: He doesn't work there any more. He either quit or got fired. Probably quit just before he got fired.

HuffPost, in my opinion, is a good example of what is sometimes called Web 2.0 because it is interactive. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about HuffPo:

... the HuffPost draws a balance between hard news commentary and coverage, popular culture and celebrity opinion features. It is also known for the wide range of opinions expressed by members of the public who are encouraged to comment on the original articles. The comment section is home to discussions on politics, religion, topical events, world affairs, cultural and social matters. It has an open format, and rarely does a commenter get banned for his or her views or even a verbal attack. Long, pointless, ad hominem, abusive and endlessly repetitious comments are the only sure way to be banned.

And here's how Wikipedia defines Web 2.0: "a perceived second generation of web-based services—such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies—that emphasize online collaboration and sharing among users."

So Wikipedia, which relies on readers to submit articles and corrections to articles, is itself a prime example of Web 2.0, right? Cool.

Footnote on lonelygirl15. I had no idea what Arianna Huffington's reference to "lonelygirl15" was about other than a hunch it looked like a screenname, so I did what the old and the clueless so often do these days to get by, I did a keyword search in Google. And here, for my clueless brothers and sisters of all ages (if there are any), is what Wikipedia has to say about it: "lonelygirl15 is an interactive web-based video serial centering around the life of a fictional teenage girl named Bree, whose YouTube username is the eponymous "lonelygirl15". The series is presented through short, regularly-updated video blogs posted by the fictional characters, as well as through an optional alternate reality game." Interactive. More Web 2.0. And it takes something like Wikipedia to keep up with it. (You won't read about it in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, right? But you can on the Web. Way cool.

We're going to do more with Web 2.0, gatekeepers, Wikipedia and this whole phenomenon of user-generated content between now and finals.

COM 150: YouTube hit artist 'fesses up

The advertising creative who made an attack ad comparing Democratic presidential candiate Hillary Clinton to "Big Brother" in 1984 has been outed. He outed himself, but only when it was clear he was about to be outed by others. Characteristically, he confessed by posting an intem to the liberal political blog Huffington Post. There's a whole 'nother story on how the interactive blog, hosted by San Francisco political activist Arianana Huffington, challenged its readers to smoke out who was responsible for the YouTube ad. One of them did, and the perp posted an item to the Huffington Post confessing up.

(I'll post something about it to The 'Wrapper later today, as soon as I find out a little more about how Huffington's blog works. I think this Hillary Clinton ad is a minor political snit that will be forgotten in a few days, but what it demonstrates about the Inernet, and what's sometimes known as "Web 2.0," is important.)

Carla Marinucci of The San Francisco Chronicle, who has led the print media in birddogging the story (and in trying to figure out what it means for the use of new media in politics). Here's how Marinucci wrote it up:

The political whodunit of the presidential campaign season was solved Wednesday after a strategist with an Internet consulting firm -- which has ties to candidate Barack Obama -- stepped forward as creator of the controversial "1984"-style Internet ad that depicted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as a "Big Brother" figure.

Philip de Vellis, a strategist with Blue State Digital, the firm that designed Obama's Web site, acknowledged that he is "ParkRidge47,'' creator of the ad. De Vellis resigned from the firm after hearing he was about to be reported as the creator by the Huffington Post blog."

Marinucci's column in The Chronicle a couple of days ago suggested YouTube will be huge in the 2008 presidential race. That's partly because citizens, not to mention anonymous political operatives, can use it for attack ads without the accountability of disclaimers and responses from the other campaign. In other words, it makes possible an end run around the gatekeepers.

This morning Marinucci quotes Peter Leyden, head of the New Politics Institute, a San Francisco think tank that deals with Internet and political issues, on some of these political implications:

"It's disappointing to hear that he's associated with a firm that is associated with Barack,'' [Leyden] said. But "it shows that someone who has a decent amount of talent and basic tools can do meaningful political video. If he did it on the side in his day job, then he's one of hundreds of thousands who could do the same.''

We'll see, we'll see. I agree when he suggests the ad is damaging to Obama's campaign, and it hurts Blue State Digital's image, even more. It suggests a lack of message discipline on the creative side.

But I'm not sure the pols are going to start flocking to YouTube with anonymous negative ads. And if they do, they aren't going to have much credibility.

That's mostly because there isn't much gatekeeping going on at YouTube. If anybody can post whatever they damn well please without the accountability that comes from putting your name to it, the postings aren't going to have much credibility. At least not among political creative types who know ads are required by law to carry a disclaimer saying the candidate approved this ad.

So, if my hunch is correct, the YouTube hits will have about as much impact as somebody's personal blog with entries about who I had lunch with today and here's a really cute picture of my cat. Great for self-expression, but not so good for reasoned discourse about public policy issues.

Howard Kurtz, media columnist for The Washington Post, this morning had a very brief item ... with one comment only: "How long before [DeVellis] hits the talk shows?" Here's DeVellis' statement, quoted at length with Kurtz' comments interpolated (they're the short grafs outside of quote marks):

"Hi. I'm Phil. I did it. And I'm proud of it.

"I made the 'Vote Different' ad because I wanted to express my feelings about the Democratic primary, and because I wanted to show that an individual citizen can affect the process. There are thousands of other people who could have made this ad, and I guarantee that more ads like it -- by people of all political persuasions -- will follow.

"This shows that the future of American politics rests in the hands of ordinary citizens.

"The campaigns had no idea who made it -- not the Obama campaign, not the Clinton campaign, nor any other campaign. I made the ad on a Sunday afternoon in my apartment using my personal equipment (a Mac and some software), uploaded it to YouTube, and sent links around to blogs.

"The specific point of the ad was that Obama represents a new kind of politics, and that Senator Clinton's 'conversation' is disingenuous. And the underlying point was that the old political machine no longer holds all the power.

"Let me be clear: I am a proud Democrat, and I always have been. I support Senator Obama. I hope he wins the primary. (I recognize that this ad is not his style of politics.) I also believe that Senator Clinton is a great public servant, and if she should win the nomination, I would support her and wish her all the best."

Right. That's why I depicted her as the droning voice of the establishment and had her blown up.

"I've resigned from my employer, Blue State Digital, an internet company that provides technology to several presidential campaigns, including Richardson's, Vilsack's, and -- full disclosure -- Obama's. The company had no idea that I'd created the ad, and neither did any of our clients. But I've decided to resign anyway so as not to harm them, even by implication."

How long before he hits the talk shows?

The jury is still out on the political repercussions of this incident, as far as I can tell, but what it says about the interactivity of the Internet is fascinating.

COM 150: Gatekeepers, Hillary and YouTube

Another class coming in a couple of minutes ... short on time ... so I'll just put up a couple of links ...

There's a "mash-up" -- a video that takes parts of earlier work together into something new -- that's kind of a negative campaign ad comparing Hillary Clinton to "Big Brother" in 1984. It's been on YouTube for a couple of weeks, and it got all over the traditional media this week -- after the Drudge report, kind of an unfiltered (and unprofessional) news blog, gave it a lot of publicity.

Another good story, in the BeyondChron.org website (put up by an alternative paper in San Francisco).

Read these stories, go to the Google news page, read some of the rest of the commentary ... there's a good one (IMHO) on the MTV news website ... and post as a comment to this blog post your answers to these questions:

1. How does gatekeeper theory shed light on this story? Who are the gatekeepers here? Who's doing an end run around them? How? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

2. How important is this? Is it going to change politics forever, as some writers seem to think? Or is anybody going to even remember it two weeks from now?

Bong Hits 4 COMM 317

Read the coverage of the Supreme Court hearing, and answer the questions below. Post them as comments to this blogpost.

1. In addition to freedom of speech, what other issues of fact and law did the lawyers and justices raise? List as many as you can?

2. What do *you* think the controlling (main) issue is?

3. If you were on the Supreme Court, how would you rule on it? How would you decide the case?

4. Why? (Or, to speak like a lawyer, what's your legal rationale?

COMM 150, 209, 317: Free speech, drugs, "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"

Here's an important case that was argued Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court. It involves a high school student in Juneau, Alaska (notice that AP style always spells out the name of this particular state), who unfurled a banner during a school-sanctioned event that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The school principal said the kid was advocating drug use, while the student said he was testing the limits on his rights of free speech. Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports:

WASHINGTON -- A high school principal was acting reasonably and in accord with the school’s anti-drug mission when she suspended a student for displaying a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner, her lawyer told the Supreme Court today.

"The message here is, in fact, critical," the lawyer, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, said during a lively argument about whether the principal violated the constitutional rights of the student.

On the other side, attorney Douglas Mertz of Juneau urged the justices to see the case as being about free speech, not drugs.

The dispute between Joseph Frederick, who in 2002 was a high school senior, and principal Deborah Morse has become an important test of the limits on the free speech rights of students.

I'm going to use the AP story to show how lawyers think through a case.

What are the facts? Our system of law, which we inherited from the English, is based on the way courts apply the "black letter law" (i.e. what's written in the law books) to individual cases. And the facts of each case are different. Here's how the AP story sets out the facts in this one:

Frederick was a high school senior in Juneau when he decided to display the banner at a school-sanctioned event to watch the Olympic torch pass through the city on its way to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City.

Morse believed his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner was a pro-drug message that schools should not tolerate. She suspended Frederick for 10 days. Frederick sued Morse, and that case now is before the court.

See how the facts give rise to the argument over whether the case is about free speech or drug use?

What's the issue? To lawyers, an issue is an undecided question that can be answered one way or the other. The issue in a case is the yes-or-no question that decides the case. In this one, it goes like this: The schools in Juneau try to teach kids not to use drugs, so exercising his free speech about "Bong Hits" brought Frederick into conflict with that school district policy. Or did it?

Here's how Sherman of The AP frames the issue:

Frederick acknowledged he was trying to provoke a reaction from school administrators with whom he had feuded, but he denied that he was speaking out in favor of drugs or anything other than free speech. A bong is a water pipe that is used to smoke marijuana.

"I waited until the perfect moment to unveil it, as the TV cameras (following the torch relay) passed," Frederick said.

Morse and the Juneau school district argue that schools will be powerless to discipline students who promote illegal drugs if the court sides with Frederick. The Bush administration, other school boards and anti-drug school groups are supporting Morse.

Frederick, now 23, counters that students could be silenced if the court reverses the appellate ruling. A wide assortment of conservative and liberal advocacy groups are behind Frederick.

See how it works? If Frederick's sign was nonsense, it didn't violate school policy. But if it was about drugs, it did. So the high court will have to rule on the facts.

What is the law of the case?. The other part of an appellate court case is the law governing the case. Part of it here is the school district policy. If Fredrick had unfurled a banner about sweat socks, puppies or goldfish or anything but drugs, it presumably wouldn't have violated the policy. So that's part of the case. And as so often happens in the Anglo-American system, the law in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case consists largely of earlier court decisions or precedents. Here's how Sherman explains it:

In a Vietnam War era case, the court backed high school student anti-war protesters who wore armbands to class. Since then, though, the court has sanctioned curtailing student speech when it is disruptive to a school’s educational mission, plainly offensive or part of a school-sponsored activity like a student newspaper.

A federal appeals court called Frederick's message "vague and nonsensical" in ruling that his civil rights had been violated. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also said Morse would have to compensate Frederick for her actions because she should have known they violated the Constitution.

In other words the 9th Circuit Court, which covers West Coast states including Alaska, agreed with Frederick's argument on the issue by saying his message wasn't about drugs. It is now up to the Supreme Court to uphold the circuit court's decision or to overturn it. A decision is expected in June, at the end of the high court's current term.

From your reading of the case, how do you think the Surpreme Court will rule? How would you rule if you a supreme court justice?

Quiz -- COMM 150 -- 500 extra credit points

Sometimes when attendance lags in my classes, I like to give quizzes in class that are not too intellectually taxing and will essentially reward you for coming to class. Today's quiz is about newspapers.

Answer as comments to this blogpost.

Q. In what large East Coast city is The New York Times located?

A.

1. Petersburg
2. Athens
3. New Berlin
4. Illiopolis
5. New York.

Be sure to tell your classmates who weren't here what you did to earn 500 extra credit points.

COMM 209 -- on the record, off the record

Cute story in media critic Howard Kurtz' column this morning in The Washington Post. It's about Vice President Richard Cheney's difficulty in staying "off the record" with the traveling press during his recent trip to Asia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

First, a definition. Reporters often take information from their sources off the record, which means they don't attribute it to them by name. A variation on the convention is taking information "on background." It's tricky, and it very swiftly leads to ethical problems because the reporters are keeping a secret (the name) from their readers. But it's done all the time, and we couldn't gather news without it. Here's Kurtz' account of what happened:

The reporters traveling with Vice President Cheney as he flew from Afghanistan to Oman yesterday were granted an interview with someone who would be identified only as a "senior administration official." But the official's identity would not remain a state secret for long.

"Let me just make one editorial comment here," the SAO said about the vice president's talks with Pakistan's leader. "I've seen some press reporting says, 'Cheney went in to beat up on them, threaten them.' That's not the way I work. I don't know who writes that, or maybe somebody gets it from some source who doesn't know what I'm doing, or isn't involved in it. But the idea that I'd go in and threaten someone is an invalid misreading of the way I do business."

The SAO also said that "I was very careful" in choosing words to criticize House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Iraq strategy.

The first-person pronoun gave away the game. But it also raised the question: Why did Cheney feel the need to speak on a not-for-attribution basis, and why did the seven journalists on the trip go along?

So Kurtz did what any reporter would do under the circumstances. He got on the phone to find out why.

Lee Anne McBride, Cheney's press secretary, could not, under the ground rules, confirm the obvious. But, she said, "it was important to provide the press and public with briefings on these meetings, and it was determined that a more comprehensive readout could be provided on a background basis."

Administration officials concluded that, for diplomatic reasons, Cheney could not publicly discuss private conversations with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

That's reasonable. It's how diplomacy works. It's also how journalism works. Some kinds of news just wouldn't ever reach the public if it weren't for "off-the-record" or "background" conventions.

Kurtz also asked the reporters why they went along with it.

Mark Silva, a Chicago Tribune reporter who made the trip, was among those pressing Cheney's staff for an on-the-record briefing, saying the vice president has been elected twice.

"At the start of our meeting with a senior administration official, in which he advised us that he insisted this talk be on background, we asked him, too, to go on the record," Silva said. Cheney agreed to be identified only while discussing the suicide bombing at Bagram air base in Afghanistan that occurred while he was there.

Silva credited the White House with releasing an accurate transcript despite numerous "I" references. "But it's also a measure of how absurd the entire business of speaking as an SAO is."

That about sums it up. At least in this case. I would never, ever tell my opinion of Vice President Cheney. At least not in public. But I can tell you that I know a journalism instructor who thinks Cheney (or whoever the SAO might have been, with a wink and a nod) was abusing the process when he went off on that "editorial comment" of his.

COM 209: Highest office(s) in the land

We'll pause today in the leadup to next year's presidential race in order to take a look at coverage in The Chicago Tribune of the election for the highest office in the land -- mayor of Chicago -- and the second highest -- seats on Chicago City Council.

Mayor Richard Daley won. That was expected. Here's a link to the Trib's story on the mayoral race. Read the first few grafs and ask yourself, "How much of this could have been written a long time before the votes were counted?" Best answer: Most of it. I'd guess it was written over the weekend. Look at the paragraph that begins, "Daley's victory came despite an ongoing federal investigation into City Hall contracting and hiring fraud ..." I'll bet that's where the "B matter," or previously written background, began.

[Stories like this are sometimes called "Lede to Come" stories, i.e. they're written so they start in the middle with the lede to come later. It's abbreviated "LTK," by the way because newspaper people have notoriously bad handwriting and "C" could like like just about anything.]

Here's another "LTK" story, concerning 42nd Ward Ald. Burton Natarus, who lost his re-election bid last night. Here's the lede, by Rick Pearson and David Kidwell. Pearson, BTW, is the Trib's top political writer:

After 35 years and nine consecutive victories, Ald. Burton Natarus was defeated Tuesday by challenger Brendan Reilly in a contest that measured whether downtown's 42nd Ward had grown tired of the colorful antics of the City Council mainstay.

With 97 percent of the precincts counted, unofficial results showed Reilly with 55 percent of the vote to Natarus' 45 percent.

Reilly claimed victory.

"We're thrilled with the results, and I'm looking forward to working with Mayor Daley to make downtown Chicago an even greater place to live and work," Reilly said.

But Natarus wasn't conceding the race. Supporters greeted the alderman at the Bella Lounge on North State Street with two minutes of raucous applause. Instead of election results, TV screens showed a PBS underwater documentary.

"I concede nothing," Natarus said later. "I'm going to wait for the vote to come in."

Late Tuesday night, Natarus left his party, telling reporters, "If I don't make it, just remember, I'm going to apply for my pension.

"I've had a good run," he said. "I've had my time."

Great quotes! Notice how Reilley, the winner, comes first. Then the ever-quotable Natarus.

Then the transition to "B matter," a couple of throwaway grafs later:

Natarus, 73, had the second-longest tenure on the council, behind only Ald. Edward Burke (14th), in a ward known as the public face of the city, encompassing the Loop, North Michigan Avenue, River North, Streeterville and the Gold Coast. ...

And so on to the end of the story.

Why write it that way? Why not begin at the beginning and take it from there? Time, mostly. If you have most of your election story written before the polls close, all you have to do is write a new lede when the returns come in and you're ready to put it in the paper. Sometimes in a major election, they'll write two ledes.

One might sound like this: "As expected, Mayor Daley cruised to an overwhelming victory over two contenders ..."

The other might begin, "In a stunning upset, Mayor Daley was defeated by ..."

Either way, you're ready to go as soon as the returns come in.

COMM 150 -- midterm hints

Our midterm, as you know if you were in class Monday, is at 1 p.m. Monday, March 5. It will be an open-book (which also means notes and anything you can find on the Internet) essay exam. There will be a 50-point essay (shoot for 750 words or two to three typed pages) and two 25-point essays (shoot for 250 words or a page to a page and a half). Here are some hints:

Have you noticed the way we've talked in class about the difference between entertainment values and the social responsibility that the media owes to society -- i.e. to report on public policy issues, keep a watchdog on government and others who abuse the public trust, and so on? Columnist Dante Chinni of the Christian Science Monitor calls it a conflict between "hard" and "soft" news. And you'll find references to the same tension linked to earlier posts to The Mackerel Wrapper. But some people, including Sue and Dean Barr writing for a website called COOLSchool in Oregon, say both entertainment and informing the public are legitimate functions of the press in a free-market system. The Barrs also have a webpage on theories of the press that explains the social responsibility theory (among others). Anyway, we'll have a question on the midterm that touches on these issues, and you'll want to quote from the book, the Barrs, Chinni or whoever else you want to. Read especially the chapters on print media in our textbook, and be ready to trace this conflict between the profit motive, entertainment and the social responsibilty function of the press for a 50-point essay.

There will be 25-pointers, too. A couple of them. One will be a self-reflective essay in which you talk about what you knew about the media when you started the class, what you know now (clearest point so far) and what you want to learn next (or the most confusing point). Here's what I say in a tip sheet on reflective essays linked to my faculty page. It mentions other courses I teach, since it's written for all my students, but you can adapt it to our course content in COMM 150:

A "content" course is a course in which you learn about a subject area -- like American Indian cultures and the history of their interaction with European-Americans, for example, or the basic principles of advertising and public relations. So you focus on the course objectives: What did you know about the mass media, U.S. history, the newspaper business, advertising, public relations or integrated marketing strategies at the beginning of the semester? What, specificaly, do you know at the end? What, specifically, have you learned? How does it fit in with what you already knew, as a media consumer or a college student?

To get ready for this, think about what we've learned so far. What was the clearest point? What still needs to be explained?

Wait, there's still one more 25-point question. It will have to do with the way radio and popular music have influenced each other over time. Here's what to look for: In the 1930s and 1940s, network radio broadcast a lot of "potted palm music," nice, inoffensive stuff that a dance band might play in an old-fashioned hotel ballroom of the period (the kind that had potted palms next to the windows). Mass market schlock, in other words. That gave way to the "Top 40" format. More schlock. When FM came along, it allowed more small stations with specialized formats to find an audience. So they could appeal to more specialized audience segments. Be able to show how the technology and the marketplace influenced the kind of music available to us as consumers over time.

Don't know what schlock is? It comes from Yiddish, and this website will tell what it means. Reader's advisory: The definition refers to other Yiddish words, some of which are body parts. Don't use them unless you know what they mean, and you know who you're talking to! Your Jewish friends -- or their parents or grandparents -- might consider them offensive and/or highly insulting.

COMM 317: Jack v. Jill

Courtesy of the Attorney General's Office for the state of Arizona, here is the way lawyers might describe a familiar nursery rhyme. Note the precision of language.

The party of the first part shall hereinafter be referred to as Jack, and the party of the second part shall hereinafter be referred to as Jill.

The parties ascended or caused to be ascended an elevation of undetermined height and degree of slope. Their purpose was to obtain, attain, procure, secure, or otherwise gain access to a receptacle suitable for the transport of a liquid consisting of hydrogen and oxygen.

The proportions of which shall not be greater than nor less than two parts of the first mentioned element and one of the latter. This composition shall hereinafter be called water. On the occasion stated above, it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Jack did plunge, tumble, topple, or otherwise was caused to lose his footing in such a manner as to thrust his body in the downward direction.

As a direct and proximate cause of these combined circumstances, Jack suffered fractures and contusions to his cranial region. Jill is said to have fallen after Jack. Whether after is used in the spatial or time passage sense has not been determined.

It's on a kids' page. But for my money, it could be on an adults' page just as well.

COMM 317: Assignment for Tue. (Feb. 27)

Here are the links to tomorrow (Tuesday) night's assignment. I announced it in class last week, but the links will make it easier for you to find the readings ... and class discussion questions ... in class.

It's all on University of Missouri Kansas City law professor Doug Linder's webpage on prior restraints. Well, not quite all of it. You'll want to do a Google search on the two new cases ... New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) and United States v. Progressive (1979).

Pentagon Papers
This case is styled New York Times Co. v. United States, but it's commonly known as the Pentagon Papers. It dealt with the publication of "leaked" documents by The Times and The Washington Post showing that parts of the case for the Vietnam war were trumped up by the government, issues that are back in the news today. The case itself is pretty straightforward, and you should be able to find good summaries. I'd start with Wikipedia's summary of the Pentagon Papers and the litigation over their publication that culminated in New York Times Co. v. United States. Of particular interest might be the U.S. State Department's summary of the case in the February 1997 issue of its Issues of Democracy electronic magazine. It's good on the First Amendment issues, less so on why the Pentagon Papers were so controversial in the first place.

Progressive story on H-bomb
You'll find less written about this case, but it raises some interesting issues. So I'll help you with links. Here's a link to an article in Time magazine on the Progressive H-bomb case. It was written right after the Milwaukee district court decision that is reproduced on Linder's page, and it gives a good summary of his reasoning and the case up to that point. In plain English, no less!

And here's a link to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story 20 years later. It sums up the court action, which ended not with a bang but a whimper when the government dropped the case and The Progressive published the story six months later. (The government dropped it because another publication, located outside the U.S., published the H-bomb recipe in the meantime. So the case, as lawyers say, was moot.) The Journal Sentinel's headline, IMHO, says it all: "Two decades later, little fallout from H-bomb article."

But the issues are fascinating. In a way, it's a good thing the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled on it. That way we can keep discussing them.

If you had been on the Supreme Court and the case was appealed to you, how would you have ruled? Here's one that's even more to the point: If you were editor of The Progressive, would you have run the story? Why? Or why not? What are the arguments in favor? Against? How do they balance out?

In addition to the questions above, be ready to answer the questions on prior restraint at the bottom of Linder's webpage, too.

COMM 317: Research proposals due March 20

Instead of a midterm exam, I am assigning you to write a research proposal. It should be at least 750 words in length, and it is due at the beginning of class Tuesday, March 20. In this proposal, you will address two questions:

What is your topic, and what do you plan to say about it?

How are you going to research the topic?

There are more tips on how to do a proposal for my classes on my SCI/Benedictine faculty page. Since COMM 317 is an upper-division course, you should incorporate some of the standard headings into your research proposal.

The headings are explained clearly in a "Beginners' Guide to the Research Proposal" prepared by the Centre for Advancement of Health at Canada's Calgary University. While Calgary's guide is specific to health sciences, the basic scientific method behind it is the same in the field of communications, the social sciences and much research in the humanities. For COMM 317, your proposal should at minimum address these headings:

1. Title and research question. What are you going to write about, and what are you going to say about it? In other words, what's your working hypothesis? As you read the Calgary guide, pay particular attention to the checklists on quality of the proposal and presentation, the study rationale, the problem (or purpose) and working hypotheses. They'll give you ideas and help you think through your study.

2. Method. How are you going to go about doing your paper? Read the two seconds sections on methodology in the Calgary guide. They address questions of experimental design and statistical analysis more often encountered in the sciences, but the discussion will help you think through the research design of your project. What is your hypotehesis? How will you test it? What are your variables?

For most of you, the project will be descriptive and the research method will involve tracking down court cases -- and news coverage that explains the cases -- on the Internet and in the library. You will take some principle of law and/or ethics and study how it is carried out in practice -- or how it was carried out in some real-world case.

For example, you might want to do a paper on the degree to which gangsta rap is protected speech under the First Amendment. After reading up on the subject a little, I would consult the University of Calgary guide and figure out some tentative research objectives, purpose and hypothesis. I might, for example, say that even though some of it is pretty exuberant, rap music doesn't present a clear and present danger to society and some of it offers criticism of society that is specifically upheld under the First Amendment. I would do a preliminary literature review, mentioning specific articles and court cases. That would get me through Part 1, the statement of title, hypothesis and so on.

Then I would consult Parts 2-3 of the Calgary guide on method. Since my paper would be based mostly on researching articles and court cases, I wouldn't have to worry as much about things like statistics, experimental design and so on. But I would want to think about some of the possible intervening variables -- for example, is race a factor in the public reaction to gangsta rap? Is the attitude toward women sometimes expressed in the lyrics a factor? Does the music incite violence? Even though I'm not doing a laboratory experiement, in other words, I would want to use the scientific method to think through the topic and make sure I'm not lumping apples and oranges together.

In class Tuesday (Feb. 27), we will choose topics and begin to think through some of the research design issues. That will occupy the second half of the period. I will post some questions about the first half, the page and cases on prior restraint on the Doug Linder website, later tonight. Stay tuned.

COMM 150: U.S. media: View from Mars?

Matt Frei of BBC News in Washington has a cute take on some current obsessions of the American news media. Read Frei's column, answer the questions below and post your answers as comments to this blog. Explain your reasoning in 4-5 well chosen sentences.

First, the questions. How do does the celebrity "news" that Frei complains of square with the social responsiblity theory of the press (and other media)? What does it tell you about American society? What is your own opinion of this stuff? Do you read it? (I do.) Why? Or, if you don't, why not? Should you? Why? Or why not? Here's another question: Are people like Lisa Nowak, Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith entitled to a little compassion? Why? Or why not? How much? Why?

Here's how Frei begins:

When little green men from Mars eventually descend on our planet and unearth America's time capsule dating back to the beginning of the year 2007, it could skewer their whole view of our great civilisation.

"What's with the viewing figures?" they will wonder.

The country was embroiled in a losing war in Iraq, a festering war in Afghanistan and a looming war at the presidential polls.

But the issues that glued the nation to their flickering screens involved an astronaut who wore a nappy while driving across the country, a pop star who was so vexed by celebrity life she shaved off all her hair and a dead stripper whose burial tested the wits of Florida's finest legal minds.

Read the rest of it. It'll remind you about the great issues of the day. . Then comment to the board.

COM 150 -- Friday's in-class question / FM radio

Today's question --

How did the technology of FM radio pave the way for today's formats that appeal to different market segments?

Post your answers as comments to this blog post.

COMM 209, 150: "Alaska to Iraq" blog

Finally reporter Rich Mauer of The Anchorage Daily News is with the troops from Alaska's Fort Richardson at a Forward Operating Base south of Baghdad. He's been in Iraq for a couple of weeks now, and his reporting has been mostly a demonstration of how sterile Baghdad is for U.S. reporters who are confined in heavily guarded hotels and the even more heavily guarded Green Zone where the Iraqi government and U.S. military headquarters are. He's been blogging every few days, but hasn't had much to say you don't see in the Associated Press roundups.

Now that's changing. Mauer filed a good one from FOB Kalsu today.

Here's part of his interview with Col. Michael X. Garrett of the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), which has its headquarters in Anchorage.

With a new defense secretary, a new general in charge of the mission, an escalation in U.S. troop strength and a new security plan unfolding, Garrett’s mission is somewhat changed. It used to be “clear, hold and build” — clear the area of violent lawbreakers, hold on to it, and build on those results. Obviously it didn’t work.

Now it’s clear, control and retain.

“Can we clear areas?” he asked.

“Yes,” he said, answering his own question.

“Can we hold them?” he asked again.

“Yes,” he answered.

“Can we retain them long enough to complete the job?”

I waited for him to reply to himself again, but this time he was silent. After a moment, I pointed that out.

“I don’t know,” he said.

“Is the war lost?” I asked.

“It’s not my feeling,” he responded quickly. “We’re all Type A personalities in the Army. We don’t like to fail at anything we do.”

There's no way a reporter could sum that feeling up and do it justice. You have to quote it.

COMM 209 students note the dialog, the short sentences and short paragraphs, both in and outside of quotation marks.

COMM 150 students click on the "Alaska to Iraq," read some of Mauer's blog posts from FOB Kalsu and compare them to his posts from Baghdad. My guess, the Green Zone is full of gatekeepers -- public affairs officers, government types -- and the FOB isn't.

COMM 150: Theories, functions of media

For class Monday, an important supplement to the discussion of the "social responsibilty theory" of the press, or media, in our textbook ...

First, a "History of Journalism Ethics" by Stephen J. A. Ward of the University of British Columbia. It's a good, concise explanation of how the role(s) of the media have evolved since the 1450s into the 21st century.

One thing that's maddening, though. Ward summarizes an important book titled Four Theories of the Press (1956). But he only lists three:

Authoritarian. Prevailing theory when kings and inquisitors censored the press -- or tried to! -- during the 1500s and 1600s.
Libertarian. The English and American theory of a free press owned by private enterprise as a counterbalance to government.
Social responsibility. A 20th-century offshoot of the libertarian model, with more emphasis on the duty of the media to society.

OK, OK. But what's the fourth theory of the press? Read on.

An online journalism course for high school students in Oregon has an excellent summary of the "Four Theories of the Press." There you'll find out the fourth theory was called "Soviet-Totalitarian." (Remember, the book came out in 1956 at the height of the Cold War.) It's basically the same as the authoritarian model.

Also on Oregon's COOLSchool website is a thought-provoking discussion of "Four Functions of the Press." For the record, they are: (1) To Serve the Economic System: (2) To Entertain; (3) To Inform; and (4) To Influence.

How do these functions complement and/or conflict with each other?

"Knowing the functions of the press will help you understand the media and how it works in a free society," suggest Sue and Dean Barr, Eugene, Ore., authors of the curriculum. "Remember, the purpose of a free press is to guarantee free and open debate and discussion. If the media is too cautious, then people come to think the press should make them feel good and bring consensus. There should be a level of discomfort; if no one is ruffled, then the media has failed."

I would add only this: Knowing the functions of the press, and being able to discuss how any conflicts among them might be resolved, will help you write better midterm and final exam essay questions.

London Times' fresh angle on Obama

A remarkable story on The Times of London's website on Sen. Barack Obama's presidential announcement.

Written for The Sunday Times by Sarah Baxter and datelined from the paper's Washington bureau (which probably means she watched it on TV or, more likely, streaming video on Obama's campaign website), it's a fairly standard blend of reportage and analysis. But it raises a chilling angle I hadn't noticed elswhere. Here's Baxter's lede:

AS Barack Obama officially launched his campaign for president in Springfield, Illinois, the home town of Abraham Lincoln, his team was quietly beefing up his security. Mindful of the fate of the 19th-century president, who abolished slavery and was assassinated, friends say that new measures are being taken to ensure Obama’s protection on the campaign trail.

At the Old State Capitol building, comparisons with the gaunt, top-hatted president were inescapable. Springfield is where Obama, like Lincoln, served for eight years as a state legislator before entering national politics.

Thousands of eager spectators thronged the square in freezing temperatures waving Obama ’08 banners as he stepped on the stage and hugged his wife and young daughters, who were bundled up in hats and scarves.

Setting out what is likely to be his signature theme, he urged Americans: “Let’s be the generation” for change. “I know it’s a little chilly, but I’m fired up.”

Obama, 45, chose the historic setting in an attempt to lay to rest accusations that he is too inexperienced to be president. He acknowledged there was a certain “presumptuousness” and “audacity” in staking his claim to the White House, but said: “I’ve been in Washington long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.”

This is a perfect example, by the way, of a soft lede introducing a nut graf -- actually two grafs, the way I read the story -- stating the news. But notice that security angle tucked away in the first graf?

I'm not sure how I feel about raising the issue. But I think it's legitimate. Necessary, maybe. And Baxter doesn't make a big point of it. In fact, she''s careful to say it didn't arise during the campaign. Instead, it came up during an interview, apparently in Washington:

Alabama congressman Artur Davis, who first met Obama while they were law students at Harvard, said the Illinois senator would “electrify” the country. “It is a historic moment, because it is the first time that a candidate of African descent has entered the race with a strong chance of being successful.”

Obama was aware of the personal risks he was taking, Davis said. “He recognises that we have some very extreme elements in this country. His campaign is wisely not discussing their security precautions publicly, but they know Barack’s candidacy creates a dimension that is different to the others and are taking steps to deal with it.”

Baxter mentions the security angle in the context of race, and she weaves it in and out of a discussion of the personal decisions that go into a campaign for high office.

Before formally entering the White House race, Obama said he was concerned about potential violence. “Being shot, obviously, that is the least attractive option,” he told the Chicago Sun-Times, and added that security was “something that is on [his wife] Michelle’s mind”.

Alma Powell, the wife of former secretary of state Colin Powell, was fearful for her husband’s safety when he was encouraged to run for president in the 1990s and is thought to have influenced his decision not to stand.

But Michelle Obama said in an interview to be broadcast on CBS television tonight: “I don’t lose sleep over it, because the realities are that ... as a black man ... Barack can get shot going to the gas station. You can’t make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen.”

Avis LaVelle, a Chicago friend of Michelle, said it was Obama’s ideas rather than his race that presented a danger. Citing the example of President John F Kennedy and his brother Robert, who were assassinated in the 1960s, she said: “These are perilous times for candidates. Think of the history of people who have stood for change and sparked this level of passion.” Michelle, 43, earns nearly twice her husband’s $165,200 (£85,000) Senate salary as vice-president for community affairs at the University of Chicago hospitals. The mother of two girls, Malia, 8, and Sasha, 5, she says she often feels like a single parent because Obama is away so often, but she makes sure he performs his share of household tasks.

According to LaVelle, Michelle would be an inspirational first lady. “She’s an incredibly compelling person in her own right — smart, loyal and very grounded. She’s also physically attractive and that makes a wonderful package.”

Obama said he was delighted to have the “100%” support of his wife. “We tend to be pretty private people, we don’t like a lot of fuss,” he said last week. “The difficulty in just going out and taking a walk or taking my kids to the zoo — the inability to do that is a major sacrifice, but we think the sacrifice is worth it.”

From there, Baxter goes on to a hard-headed analysis of what Obama will have to do to get the black vote nationwide and other campaign issues. She writes:

Obama left Springfield immediately after his speech for a weekend swing through Iowa and Chicago and on to New Hampshire tomorrow. After a meteoric start to his early, unofficial campaign, his momentum has been checked by [Sen. Hillary] Clinton, who currently has a double-figure lead in the polls for the Democratic nomination.

He warned last week: “I learnt my politics in Chicago, a place not known for producing push-overs. If somebody goes at us, we’ll respond. I am not averse to drawing sharp contrasts between myself and other candidates.”

And Baxter ends with another interview, this one with an unnamed Clinton backer, and a nice "kicker" at the end that just about sums up the story -- with a twist:

With at least a year to go before the Democratic race is decided, one veteran of the Clinton White House said of Obama: “He has been riding a huge wave because he is a dream candidate, but what goes up goes down. The magic can only last so long without the organisation, money and nuts and bolts of a campaign that the Clinton camp is so good at.”

On reflection, he added: “He is no fluke either” — as the former first lady may soon discover.

COMM 317: assignments update

Hi everybody --

I'm going to announce this in COMM 150 and COMM 209, but please make an effort to get the word to your other classmates who aren't in those classes. I stand in awe of the SCI/Benedictine student grapevine, and I know you'll get the word around.

As you follow the links on the First Amendment webpage by University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor Doug Linder that I assigned Tuesday night, you'll find references to Josh Wolf. He's a freelance photographer who has been in jail for contempt of court since Sept. 22 for refusing to turn his film of a 2005 demonstration over to a grand jury. The Society of Professional Journalists has a timeline and an explanation of why they have raised $31,000 for Wolf's defense fund on its website.

In addition to the questions on Linder's page, be ready to discuss this one in class as well: What is it about the First Amendment that is so important that a guy would spend 170 days (as of today) defending it?

Wolf's case is important, and it is current -- i.e. it is happening now, and in the real world. See what else you can find before class about the facts of his case and the law that governs it. We will add it to the ongoing cases we are following.

Research Projects
Those of you who stayed for the entire class Tuesday night already know some of this, so I'll update you. Others will be able to get the background from students who were there.

While I don't have the details finalized yet, I intend to have the required research project count 25 percent of your final grade, 20 percent on a 10- to 12-page documented research paper and 5 percent on an oral presentation that you give during the last weeks of April. It will be on a court case or legal doctrine related to the First Amendment, ethical and/or intellectual property issues we study, and it will replace the written case briefs stipulated under "Means of Evaluation" in your syllabus.

So count on doing a documented research paper and a formal presentation of your findings in April. I will have more detailed instructions for you as soon as possible.

Attendance policy

Crossposted to to my class blogs, The Mackerel Wrapper for communications students and Hogfiddle for students in my interdisciplinary humanities courses.

Last night several students walked out of Communications 317 (mass media law and ethics) during the break without notifying me ahead of time that they had other commitments. Accordingly, they received grades of zero (0%) for class participation; to count them as present would not be fair to those students who did attend for the full class period. The attendance policy is outlined in Section 6, Paragraph A of the syllabus:

Attendance is mandatory. To avoid class disruption, students in COM 317 must be on time. If a student misses class, it is the student's responsibility to get class notes, assignments, etc., from classmates. Missed in-class work, by its very nature, cannot be made up. Absences will hurt your grade.

(Boldface type in the original.)

Similar policy statements are incorporated in my syllabuses for Communications 150 and 209, and Humanities 221. All contain the warning that unexcused absences will hurt your grade.

For pre-professional students in communications, it is especially important to attend classes or to notify your instructors ahead of time if you will not be able to do so. Professional standards of behavior are just as important for your future success in the field as writing and editing skills. For SCI students taking my classes for General Education or elective credit, it is ordinary courtesy to let your instructors know when you will not be able to attend class.

COMM 209: Next week's assignments

You'll have two:

1. Obama's presidential announcement. U.S. Sen. Barak Obama, D-Chicago, will announce his candidacy at 10 o'clock Saturday morning at the Old State Capitol downtown. The national and international press will be there to cover it. Your assignment: Compare the coverage of the event in The State Journal-Register and The Washington Post. If you are able to go yourself, compare your observations to both. This paper should be 750-1,000 words, including quotes. It is due at the beginning of Class Monday, Feb. 12.

2. Profile an event. You will have several to choose from. Senator Obama's presidential campaign announcement Saturday morning, two rallies for his supporters Friday night and the poetry slam in the Presidents Room on the SCI/Benedictine campus Friday night. Details below. This will be due at the beginning of class Wednesday, Feb. 14.

I will post more suggestions to the blog between now and Monday.

To get ready for the Obama announcement, read the stories in the J-R. Today's says "gates will open at Sixth and Adams streets at 9 a.m., and ... the Obama campaign has said the program will begin about 10 a.m." Springfield Mayor Tim Davlin is quoted:

“We’d invite everybody to carpool as much as they possibly can because parking in the street is going to be at a minimum,” Davlin said, although several downtown garages will be open, providing more than 1,000 spaces. The parking lot below the Old Capitol, however, will close at 5 a.m. Saturday.

The mayor said the forecast indicates it will be cold, but it is “99.9 percent certain” that the event will be outdoors, on the lawn of the Old State Capitol.

He encouraged people to dress warmly but avoid bringing backpacks or large bags.

“More than likely they’ll have to go through somewhat of a checkpoint,” he said, although he said he doesn’t expect metal detectors to be employed.

Most of the crowd will have to stand for the event. Handicapped seating will apparently be available.

Other events you may choose to profile instead include two receptions for supporters in town Friday night and the poetry slam on campus. There are bound to be other events taking place in the area, too. So the subject matter is open. I think you'll get the most, however, out of going to the Obama announcement and watching the national press corps. They'll probably be herded onto a flatbed trailer with a clear TV shot of the candidate and the Old State Capitol in the background.

On writing profiles, read this tip sheet linked to my faculty page. Especially the part on "Gathering your information" toward the bottom. But it's all brilliant. Has to be. I wrote it.

COMM 209: Obama announcement, rallies

This from Bernie Schoenburg's story on U.S. Sen. Barak Obama's presidential announcement in today's State Journal-Register:

Bundle up, Obama watchers.

Wind-chill readings could be near zero Saturday as people go to the Old State Capitol to watch Sen. Barack Obama announce his intentions in the 2008 presidential race.

And if it's really cold, what advice can the Illinois Democrat's campaign give?

"We're encouraging folks to dress as warmly as possible," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton via e-mail.

Nice lede! Schoenburg goes on to give details of Obama's speech Saturday morning and two campaign rallies the night before. I'll get back to them, but first I want to change the assignment for this weekend's festivities: If you can't cover the candidate's speech Saturday morning, go to one of the rallies Friday night and write it up. Shoot for 500-750 words (two to three typed pages). Whichever you write up, it's due in class Monday.

I'll give you some suggestions below, but first the details.

Saturday morning. Obama is expected to speak around 10 a.m. Spectators should be at the corner of 6th and Adams at 9 a.m. to get in. There will be considerable security, although details were not yet available today.

Friday night. Schoenburg lists two events, as follows:

A salute to Obama is planned for 5-7 p.m. at the Firefighters Lake Club, 940 West Lake Shore Drive. Organizers include Fire Capt. Chris Richmond and Neil Calderone, who has a political action committee called Progressive Leadership PAC. Local 37 of the International Association of Fire Fighters is renting the building, and the Associated Fire Fighters of Illinois is paying for refreshments.

The event is open to the public, and donations to Obama's exploratory campaign fund will be accepted.

Dan Shomon, a former Obama campaign manager who is a Chicago-based lobbyist and political consultant, is hosting an informal "get-together for friends" at The Alamo, 115 N. Fifth St., from 8 p.m. Friday to 1 a.m. Saturday. The event is open to the public, and there is no cover charge.

I wouldn't blame any students who choose to write up an inside event (which is what I may do myself). Here's how to do it, whether you're inside at a reception or ourside at the Old State Capitol. Bring a notebook. Keep your eyes and ears open. Take down what you see and hear so you'll remember it. If anybody makes a speech, take it down. Lead with what they say, and weave your descriptions around it. See the tip sheet on writing profiles linked to my faculty page for more tips. Scroll down the page to the part on "gathering information."

If you're going to be outside, Schoenburg's story has some good advice on how to dress for an outside media pop:

The wind speed is expected to be 8-10 mph, said Chris Geelhart, another NWS expert. With a prediction of 13 degrees at 9 a.m. Saturday, that would make the wind chill about 2 degrees.

Louie Rogers, emergency medical services educator with St. John's Hospital, said being outside in such temperatures calls for precautions including non-restrictive layers of clothing and definitely gloves, hats and scarves.

"It's easier to take off a layer than it is to add a layer," he said.

Products such as chemical hand-warmers could help, he said. Such products can be placed in boots or gloves and can provide a couple of hours of warmth.

"Drink your fluids," he added. "Eat a good breakfast."

And if it is allowed, bringing a warm drink with you would also help, he said.

Security details for the event have not yet been released, and it is not clear what people will be able to bring.

So if you do take a warm drink, don't put it in an expensive mug. You may not be allowed to take it onto the Old State Capitol grounds.

COMM 209 -- quotes, irony

Associated Press stories are often pretty bland. The AP has so many clients, it's sort of a lowest common denominator. But this quote was well played in an AP story about the current cold weather in the Midwest and Northeast. First, the quote:

It was so cold that Toledo, Ohio — 5 above zero at noon, up from 4 below — even closed its outdoor ice rink. "The irony is not lost on us," said city spokesman Brian Schwartz.

I might have broken that into two 'grafs, to highlight the quote a little more. But I love the way the writer, Roger Petterson of AP in New York, set it up.

Some more quotes in the same story, from northern Minnesota and the Dakotas:

Veterinarian Wade Himes wasn't too concerned as he ate breakfast at the Shorelunch Cafe in International Falls.

"We get up and go to work, and people come and see us. I don't think anything changes that much. (You) just dress warm," said Himes, 69.

Temperatures in Grand Forks, N.D., dipped to 31 below zero early Monday at the airport, 3 degrees lower than the records set in 1982 and 1967, the National Weather Service said. Meteorologist Bill Barrett described the record as "relatively mild."

"It's only 31 below," said Randy Hjelmstad, owner of Randy's Refuse in Grand Forks. "It's not that bad out."

Call it irony, call it understatement, call it typical "Minne-SNOW-ta" humor. But the quotes add a little something to what otherwise would be a routine weather roundup.

COMM 317: National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley

In class Tuesday, we'll take up National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, a 1998 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the NEA can take "decency" into account when awarding grants for artistic projects. The plaintiffs, fronted by performance artist Karen Finley, had argued it would be an unlawful prior restraint of free speech.

The language of the case is dense. (Or maybe it's me that's dense, but I couldn't follow it.) But luckily there's an interdisciplinary online education project called Freedom of Expression at the National Endowment for the Arts, partially funded by the American Bar Association's Commission on College and University Legal Studies, that has links to newspaper stories explaining the decision. The Christian Science Monitor's and The Washington Post's are especially good. It also has links to the high court's decision, *"briefs" or legal arguments filed on both sides of the case, an unoffical transcript of the oral arguments in the case and newspaper reports on the arguments.

______________

* An appellate court brief is not the same thing as the abstract prepared by a law student, although the same kind of legal reasoning is used in both (or should be)! They are like argumentive essays that take an issue before the court and argue why the judges should hold on their side of that issue. They are anything but brief.

Your assignment

Read the newspaper coverage, and see if you can outline a student brief on the case.

Include the following:

Style of the case. NEA v. Finley.
The facts.
The law. There are two or three floating around -- free speech, prior restraint and several others raised on both sides of the case.
The issue. The yes-or-no question the court had to decide.
The court's holding. What did it decide on that issue?
The rationale. The court's legal reasoning on the facts and the law.

COMM 150, 209: Levees, news value, gatekeeping

In COMM 150 (intro to mass comm.), we've been studying the "gatekeeping" theory that identifies people and institutions that restrict the flow of information. In COMM 209 (basic newswriting), we've been studing the benchmarks of "news value" that determine whether a story is newsworthy. Here's a USA Today story on dangerous levees that illustrates both points. The lede:

WASHINGTON — Bowing to demands from news organizations, the Army Corps of Engineers revealed the locations Thursday of 122 levees nationwide that are so poorly maintained they could fail in a major flood.

Some of the substandard levees protect densely populated areas, such as Springfield, Mass., Albuquerque and Sacramento. Many others are in rural areas, where they shield valuable farmland but relatively few people.

Maj. Gen. Don Riley, director of civil works for the corps, said he does not know how many people live near the levees or what the required repairs might cost. He said communities have one year to fix the problems.

If a levee's deficiencies are not corrected, people living nearby might have to buy flood insurance.

If you're taking COMM 209, you'll notice the story has impact. If the levees aren't fixed, a lot of people will buy insurance, at best, and get flooded out, at worst. So the impact may be long-term, but it's there.

We'll get back to news values in a minute. But first, let's look at the gatekeeping angle. USA Today reports:

Some local officials first learned of the problems this week, after USA TODAY reported Monday that the corps had found 146 levees with problems so severe that floods could overwhelm them. The corps, which inspects about 2,000 levees nationally, refused at that time to list the specific levees.

USA TODAY and the Associated Press then requested the list under the Freedom of Information Act.

The full list of levees can be seen at news.usatoday.com.

[Maj. Gen. Don] Riley said the corps wanted to wait to release the list until it finished notifying all communities responsible for maintaining those levees. He noted that 24 levees were dropped from the earlier count because some communities have corrected the problems. He said that the corps "will likely find more (levees) that are deficient" when additional inspections and reviews are done in the coming months.

It's a perfect example of gatekeeping in action. The corps was taking its time about getting the information out. The papers wanted it now. That gives the story an element of conflict, too, because the papers went to court to get the list.

And the other news values?

The story is timely, mostly because of this week's court action. Otherwise, it's a long-term problem. So I'd give it a B-plus for timeliness.

Proximity? I don't think the Sangamon River even has levees. But if I worked for The Quincy Herald-Whig, I'd take a look at that list. They have a levee several miles south of town that has a habit of breaking. I think it's called the Sny. If it's on the list, I've got a local story.

Prominence? Nope. Maybe to General Riley's family and friends, but not to me. I've never heard of him.

Weirdness? Not a bit. Floods are always with us. So are government officials who sit on information the public needs to know.

And finally, there's a category called currency. That's one of those things that's hard to define, but you know it when you see it. It means it's a story that everybody's talking about already.

There are several stories like that in today's news. There's a new report out on global warming. The issue has currency. So does the Super Bowl. And J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, plans to have the last novel in the series on the street -- or in the bookstores -- this summer. That's worth 892 hits on the Google news page, partly because of shrewd marketing but partly because the Harry Potter novels have currency.

COM 209: Anonymous sources and ethics

Of all that's been written so far about the "Scooter" Libby trial, media critic Howard Kurtz' column in today's Washington Post tells perhaps the most about how political reporters and their sources feed off of each other. It came in his account of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller's testimony about relationship with Libby as a journalist who granted anonymity to a news source.

"Throughout the afternoon," said Kurtz, "an unspoken question hung in the air: What do journalists give up when they agree to protect high officials in exchange for juicy information?"

I'll answer it. If they're not careful, their reputation for integrity is what they give up.

Here's how Miller's testimony went:

In a steady but slightly nervous voice, Miller described how her relationship with Libby began: with a bit of flattery. In their first meeting in the Old Executive Office Building, Miller recalled Libby saying that "he liked my reporting on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism." Libby's only quibble was that he had never received an inscribed copy of "Germs," a book on bioterrorism that she coauthored. Miller said she apologized for the oversight.

Gazing through rimless glasses at prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Miller, 59, described one of the most common transactions in journalism: how the contours of the reporter-source relationship are defined.

When she "expressed a desire" for regular conversations, Libby said "he would prefer not to see his name in print," Miller said. "We could continue meeting as long as I would identify him as an administration official or senior administration official." She readily agreed.

That kind of arrangement is common. It's known as speaking "on background," which means the source speaks with the reporter to give her (or him) background but not "on the record," or for for direct quotation. So reporters negotiate what they'll call the source in print -- the idea is to give enough information to let readers decide on the source's credibility but not to identify the source by name. (There's a fine and sometimes-not-very-subtle art involved in guessing who somebody else's anonymous source is, by the way. You ask yourself who would know that information, and then who would have the most to gain by leaking it. It's fun, and any number can play.) Anyway, Miller and Libby talked with each other on background.

Kurtz continues:

At a meeting in Libby's office in June 2003, Libby seemed "agitated and frustrated and angry," not to mention "annoyed," Miller said. He was concerned that the CIA, through a "perverted war of leaks," was distancing itself from its prewar intelligence about Saddam Hussein's illegal weapons.

So Libby would combat these leaks by leaking to Miller, she explained in a tone that indicated this was the most natural thing in the world. Miller said he told her that the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who was challenging the administration's account that Iraq had tried to buy enriched uranium in Africa, worked for "the bureau" -- prompting Miller to put a question mark in her notes until she realized that Libby meant the CIA.

During a two-hour meal at the St. Regis hotel the following month, Miller said, Libby changed the ground rules and went "on deeper background," asking to be identified only as a "former Hill staffer."

That phrase "deeper background" refers to another fine and not-so-subtle art: There's "background," and then there's "deep background," which is like "background" but with the identification more general so it's harder to play the Washington (or Statehouse) guessing game. When I took information on "deep" background in my reporting days, I'd run it with no identifying information at all. Or I would use something cheesy like "speculation at the Statehouse is ..." But I tried to not to it at all, or to use the background information to get somebody else to talk about it on the record.

But look what Libby and Miller did with it -- it's true Libby is a "former Hill staffer," which means in English he once worked for Congress, i.e. on Capitol Hill. But when he spoke with Miller, he was speaking about things we knew from working with the White House, not Congress. It's true to identify him that way, because he did have a Congressional staff job a number of years ago, but it's misleading. It may be a small point, but it's important. When she let Libby get away with pointing her readers in the wrong direction, in my mind, is when Miller stepped over a bright ethical red line.