Freedom of Speech and the Press in the Information Age · Barack Obama is elected with a Democratic...

McCormick Freedom Museum

The McCormick Freedom Museum is the nation’sfirst museum dedicated to freedom and the First Amend-ment. Opening its doors on April 11, 2006, the FreedomMuseum inspires generations to understand, value andprotect freedom. Through interactiveexploration, visitors gain a greater understanding ofthe struggle for freedom in the United States and therole the First Amendment plays in our daily lives.Though the Museum appeals to children and adults ofall ages, its content is geared primarily toward studentsat the middle and high school levels. The Museum is aresource for teachers and students across the country.Its comprehensive education program offers curricula,student activities, field trips and other learningopportunities.

James Madison MemorialFellowship Foundation

The James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundationwas established by Congress in 1986 for the purpose ofimproving teaching about the United States Constitutionin secondary schools. The Foundationis an independent agency of the Executive Branch ofthe federal government. Funding for the Foundation’sprograms comes from Congress and generouscontributions from individuals, foundations andcorporations. The Foundation has a Board of Trusteesand its daily operations are directed by a presidentand a small staff. The Foundation’s office is locatedin Washington, D.C.

Freedom of Speech and the Press inthe Information AgeConference Report and Lesson PlansCo-sponsored by: The McCormick Freedom Museum andThe James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation

McCormick FoundationConference Series

McCormickFoundationC

McCormick Foundation Conference Series

56535_Cover_u1:Layout 1 9/9/08 7:29 PM

56535_Cover:Layout 1 9/8/08 12:45 AM

Conference Report and Lesson Plans Co-sponsored by:The McCormick Freedom Museum and The James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation

Georgetown UniversityWashington, D.C.

Freedom of Speech and the Pressin the Information Age

1

56535_Conference_u2:Layout 1 9/10/08 7:50 PM Page 1

2

Table of Contents

Foreword 3

Introduction 4

Chapter 1:Free Speech on the Internet, Blogs and in the Traditional Press 6Lesson Plan 10

Chapter 2:Should the United States Return to the Fairness Doctrine? 13Lesson Plan 18

Chapter 3:Should Reporting Be Limited During Times of War? 23Lesson Plan 27

Chapter 4:Free Speech and Campaign Finance Reform 30Lesson Plan 35Student Worksheet A 37Student Worksheet B 38

Appendix: Speakers 40Appendix: Participants 42

Freedom of Speech and the Pressin the Information Age

Published byMcCormick Foundation435 North Michigan AvenueSuite 770Chicago, Illinois 60611312 222 3512E-mail: [email protected]

All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2008McCormick Foundation

Freedom of Speech and the Press in the Information Age


On behalf of the McCormick Freedom Museum,the newest addition to the McCormickFoundation, I am happy to present a report

produced as a result of our June 2008 conference,Freedom of Speech and the Press in the InformationAge, held at Georgetown University in Washington,D.C. Presented in partnership with the JamesMadison Memorial Fellowship Foundation, this gath-ering of more than 130 social studies educators andthought leaders who practice First Amendment free-doms daily is part of the McCormick FoundationConference Series.

We would like to thank Admiral Paul Yost and LewLarsen of the Madison Foundation; without their guid-ance and support this conference would not have beenpossible. We also appreciate the contributions of thenine guest speakers who participated in the sympo-sium and whose expertise this report embodies. Mostof all, we commend the social studies teachers fromacross the country who serve on the front lines in ourcollective mission to foster civic engagement amongour nation’s young people. All of them shared insightsembedded in the lesson plans that follow, and two inparticular, Ryan Ervin and Kristi Stricker, served as theprimary authors.

Georgetown University, in the heart of our nation’scapital, was an ideal setting for a conference exploringcontemporary challenges surrounding freedom ofspeech and press. Here we shared the site of theJames Madison Summer Institute, where fellows fromacross the nation convene annually to study ournation’s foundational documents, seeking to shed his-torical light on contemporary freedom topics in theirclassrooms. The goal of this conference was to explorefour major topics: freedom of speech on the Internet,

the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, reporting duringtimes of war and campaign finance reform. In the end,our mission was an unqualified success, and thisreport stands as a testament to both the breadth anddepth of material addressed over the course of thetwo-day conference.

The McCormick Foundation is deeply committed toadvancing the ideals of a free, democratic society byinvesting in children, communities and country. A fun-damental premise of our democratic society is that aninformed and educated public has the capacity tosolve the problems it confronts.

For more than 15 years, the McCormick FoundationConference Series has provided a forum for explorationand analysis of complex issues, situations and eventsaffecting our communities and country. It’s our hopethat this conference report and associated lesson planswill help us all to reach a greater understanding of con-temporary First Amendment challenges, and begin tocreate long-term solutions that will preserve freedomfor years to come.

Sincerely,

David L. GrangePresident and CEOMcCormick Foundation

Foreword

3


Introduction

4

On June 26–27, 2008, more than 130 socialstudies teachers from across the UnitedStates, its territories, Cuba and even Iraq gath-

ered at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.,for the James Madison Symposium conducted in part-nership with the McCormick Freedom Museum. Thesymposium was titled Freedom of Speech and Pressin the Information Age and explored four related topicsunder this thematic umbrella including free speech onthe Internet and blogs, as well as in the traditionalpress; the Fairness Doctrine; press coverage duringwartime; and the free speech implications of cam-paign finance reform.

The two-day conference was organized around fourseparate panels based on the aforementioned sub-jects, and also included an evening banquet with akeynote address by C-SPAN President and CEO BrianLamb, as well as a morning working session on lessonplans to address the four central topics.

This report presents a summary of these deliberationsin chapter form, with each chapter followed by alesson plan rooted in the conference proceedings.The hope is that the summaries of the panel discus-sions help to contextualize the topics addressed andprovide solid leads for further examination of theseissues. They frame the embedded lesson plans, eachdesigned for use in social studies classes at thesecondary level.

The lesson plans begin with a critical engagementquestion, followed by an overview of the exercise; thelesson objectives and relevant standards follow, alongwith suggested homework and extension activities.Learning materials for your students are also included indocument form for easy duplication and dissemination.

Brief biographies of each of our nine speakers followthe first four content- and lesson-plan based chaptersin the appendix along with a list of conference partici-pants, including staff members of the James MadisonFoundation and the McCormick Freedom Museum.Brief descriptions of our respective organizationscan be found on the back cover of this report.

Before diving into the four content areas, a summaryof Brian Lamb’s keynote address is warranted. Lambbegan his speech by recapping his extraordinarycareer (detailed in the appendix), then quickly pivotedinto C-SPAN’s undertakings, suggesting that if hecould not capture the interests of this group of highlymotivated social studies teachers, he “might as wellgive up.”

Lamb’s remarks were punctuated by frequent give-and-take with the audience. He asked, “Why do youdo what you do? Tell me why you’re here, why youteach.” Among the responses: “Because I have thebest job in the world.” “September 11.” “I wanted to dosomething good for my country.” “We have to be verypositive in our outlook and help students understandwhy the Constitution matters to them.” “I realized I hadthe greatest legacy in my life [after 36 years of teach-ing].” And, finally, “To me, it’s about protecting thefuture, especially…our freedoms.”

Lamb then paid tribute to his own high school broad-casting teacher, Bill Fraser, who supported his effortsto build a radio station at school with two 45-speedrecord players.

He then launched into a debate with participantsover the echoes in some circles for a return of theFairness Doctrine, a topic addressed in a panel pre-ceding the banquet. He began with the contention that,“Something needs to be done about media consolida-tion” due to the limited amount of information availableto the general public. While we have now movedbeyond the three major television networks for theprovision of news, and an “unlimited number” of out-lets now exist, Lamb considers it poor policy to allowClear Channel to own 1,200 channels, eight in theWashington, D.C., area alone.

One participant contended, “The public airwavesbelong to us.” Another responded, “I conclude thepublic airwaves are being used responsibly.”Regardless, Lamb predicted that the chances of returnof the Fairness Doctrine are “pretty good” if SenatorBarack Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress



5

this November. While remaining agnostic toward thelatter development, he urged restraint in the case ofthe former, asking the audience, “Who do you want todecide what is fair?” He cited former President RichardNixon as an example, who favored the FairnessDoctrine because it enabled him to “beat up on” anynetwork that criticized the administration.

In the end, Lamb concluded that the public “airwavesare becoming less and less important every day,”adding that the Fairness Doctrine usually returns whenpeople are concerned about the presence of specificpoints of view.

The balance of Lamb’s remarks centered onC-SPAN’s role in shedding sunlight upon the workof Washington. The network is funded by a five-cents-per-customer fee paid by cable television subscribers.Because it lacks media stars of its own, C-SPAN islargely ignored by the mainstream media. In thisvacuum, Lamb asked us to introduce it to our students.

Lamb lamented about the conundrum his networkoften faces when attempting to televise our govern-ment in action, centering much of his scrutiny upon theSupreme Court. He referenced a dinner sponsored bythe Cleveland Club where Justice Antonin Scalia wasset to receive a free speech award. The AssociateJustice refused to appear if C-SPAN’s cameras werepresent, so the network made this irony known to thepeople of Cleveland, as the Plain Dealer blasted thestory on the front page upon Scalia’s arrival.

This account, and the Supreme Court’s generalrefusal to allow live broadcasts of oral arguments,speaks to the desire of government institutions inWashington to control the political environment. JusticeSouter has gone so far as to suggest that there will becameras in the Supreme Court over his “dead body.”Lamb debunked the suspicion that prevails on theCourt that C-SPAN will make money off of these poten-tial broadcasts. Instead, his motivations are spawnedby his conviction that, “If I pay for it, I ought to be ableto see it, with the exception of national security issues.”

In the end, Lamb left his audience with a more uplift-ing forecast, contending that our country has neverbeen in better shape in terms of openness. Televisionand the Internet, he argues, have helped facilitatethis progress. He cited an interview conducted thatmorning via the Internet with Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice on a bus in Lafayette, LA, that wasbroadcast live by C-SPAN as an example of the publicaccess that these technologies have enabled.

Lamb’s address captured the very spirit of this two-day conference, where new technologies are intersect-ing with the 18th century guarantees of the FirstAmendment, especially freedom of speech and thepress. The four chapters that follow, and the topicsaddressed within, fit perfectly within this umbrella andspeak to both the challenges and opportunities pre-sented by the Information Age. We begin by address-ing the free speech implications of the emergence ofthe Internet and blogs, as well as the collective impactof Digital Age developments on the traditional press.


Chapter 1:Free Speech on the Internet, Blogs and in the Traditional Press

Jane Hall, associate professor in the School ofCommunication at American University, andMichael Scherer, a correspondent for TIME

Magazine, took turns addressing the impact of Infor-mation Age technologies on the traditional press. Theylater answered audience questions in tag-team fashion.A recount of their respective presentations follows,along with suggestions for additional reading andresearch to supplement the associated lesson plan.

Jane Hall began her segment with an uplifting devel-opment from academia: The Constitution and the FirstAmendment are making a comeback in terms of curricu-lar emphasis. At the same time, she finds that her stu-dents are relatively ignorant regarding the five freedomsof the First Amendment and American history in general.Before assuming her academic post 10 years ago, Hallspent 25 years in the news media. She confesses thatshe is increasingly aware of media excesses from hernew position, not to mention her weekly role defendingthe mainstream media opposite conservative criticBernie Goldberg on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor.

Turning to the topic at hand, Hall referenced her recentpartnership with WashingtonPost.com where she stud-ied young peoples’ attitudes toward the election. Shefound that our nation’s youth are tracking the compelling2008 contest via the Internet, not television, and that theyare concerned about major issues in this election, name-ly the economy, the Iraq War and health care. Hall alsonoted generational differences specific to key issues. Forexample, youth attitudes about privacy present a basic

conundrum. While they fear government surveillance,they place personal facts about themselves for all to seeon social networking sites.

Hall also contends that young people are interested in“edge and opinion,” the primary program format of cablenews. Moreover, the popularity of such shows as TheDaily Show and The Colbert Report among a youngerdemographic also plays to this tendency, offering anironic twist while proffering opinionated programming.

These trends are reflected in the ever-changing medialandscape. Authority has been turned upside-down, foreveryone is an “owner” of information nowadays, andone no longer needs to own a printing press for purpos-es of dissemination. Moreover, whereas elites drawndisproportionately from male, white, upper-class popula-tions with Ivy League educations formerly dictated thenews agenda, their grasp is ever tenuous. Today’s newsalso trickles from the bottom up, especially through so-called “citizen journalists.”

The viral aspect of the contemporary news environ-ment is understudied and underappreciated, where

individual readers make habit of forwarding stories toone another. Also, bloggers played a prominent rolein CBS’ use of falsified documents in its 2004 storyabout President Bush’s service in the Texas NationalGuard. YouTube alone has changed the dynamics ofpolitical coverage in recent years, holding candidatesto new levels of accountability. For instance, thesermons of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, which can beviewed on YouTube, forced Senator Barack Obama to

6

Jane Hall, an associate pro-fessor of communications atAmerican University, makesa weekly appearance on theO’Reilly Factor defending themainstream media, anddebates conservative criticBernie Goldberg.


7

respond directly to the more controversial claims of hisformer pastor.

These changes aside, Hall claims there is still a placefor the mainstream media. She references theWashington Post’s 2007 series on the abuses at WalterReed Hospital, calling it “phenomenal,” and asks whowill do the costly reporting in the absence of traditionalvehicles. Perhaps a nonprofit model like that practicedby the St. Petersburg Times or the emergent ProPublica will provide an answer to this perplexing ques-tion, Hall suggests. She claims the mainstream mediais “under siege” economically at the same time it weath-ers attacks for its allegedly liberal bias. She finds thiscriticism “off the mark,” but acknowledges widespreadconcern within newsrooms about the charges, andaffirmative steps pursued to prove otherwise. Takentogether, Hall laments that the credibility of the main-stream media has undeniably declined.

Collectively, Hall concludes that the impact of thesechanges in the media landscape on young peopleremains unknown. As a college professor, she findsthat her students constantly editorialize when practicingjournalism, and she is forced to guide them back toobjectivity. In the end, Hall argues that the basic con-ventions that have guided the profession for decadesremain the same.

Michael Scherer is a relative newcomer to the fieldof journalism, launching his career just a decade ago.Yet he, too, is amazed by the changes he has witnessedin the intervening years. He began his career at a smallnewspaper in Northampton, MA, where the DailyHampshire Gazette used an answering machine inplace of its editorial page, merely transcribing readermessages verbatim in the next day’s print edition.Scherer draws a parallel between this and the currentcomments section attached to stories he posts onlinefor TIME Magazine.

Overall, he finds changes like these and those describedearlier by Hall more good than bad and inevitablenonetheless. His overall comments echoed Hall’s to alarge degree, and were centered on three primarychanges he sees in the contemporary field of journalism.

First, Scherer contends that news delivery is no longera static one-way relationship from reporter to reader,viewer or listener, but rather a conversation between thetwo. Whereas editors formerly determined the news ofthe week, the emergence of cable news, news aggrega-tors like the Drudge Report, talk radio and, collectively,the 24-hour news cycle have forever altered the equa-tion. Partisan news sources have also re-entered the fray,

harkening back to the founding era, where the likes ofDaily Kos and Rush Limbaugh cater to ideological audi-ences on the left and right, respectively. As power shiftsto news consumers, mainstream media sources are pro-vided with immediate feedback in the form of page clicksand reader comments.

Second, Scherer suggests that the importance ofpackaging of news by mainstream media sources hasdecreased. Individual stories are now more importantthan the overall newspaper, magazine or news programitself. Furthermore, these forces have turned the hier-archy that formerly governed journalism on its head,allowing individual reporters to rise rapidly rather thanclimbing the proverbial ladder.

This development has led to more audacious report-ing. Scherer compared recent stories by the New YorkTimes and online political news source Politico aboutthen Democratic presidential candidate Senator HillaryClinton’s chances of winning her party’s nomination.Politico was much bolder in dismissing her odds thanthe more reserved New York Times. Even in such tradi-tional news bureaus as the Associated Press, however,there is evidence of greater voice from individualreporters as news analysis like that present in weeklymagazines has entered the fray as a standard storyform, and is more aggressive in holding political figuresaccountable for their statements and actions. Part andparcel to these collective developments is the expandedpremium placed on breaking news.

Third and finally, like Hall, Scherer referenced the bro-ken economic model for daily newspapers. Calling thecontemporary situation a “real and serious threat,” heidentified the failure to retain advertisers as they havemigrated online, specifically to Web sites like Craigslist.As a result, newspapers have been forced to reduce thesize of their staffs, and citizen journalists have emergedto fill the vacuum. Furthermore, Scherer said thatrespected online news entities like Salon and Politicoare operating at losses, but this may represent the waveof the future as journalism assumes a place in our civicstructure where wealthy individuals or nonprofits (seeabove) are willing to subsidize the “relatively cheap”practice of news gathering.

Regardless, Scherer suggests that journalism will notdie because individuals are consuming its product inrecord numbers. People read more books, watch moretelevision, and spend more time on the Internet thanever before. For example, more than 9 million peoplevisited the Washington Post’s Web site last month, far inexcess of its print audience. Scherer holds this as proof



that readership exists; only the financial model itselfis broken.

After making their respective remarks, Hall andScherer then entertained questions from symposiumparticipants. A select number of them are recounted inthe paragraphs that follow.

One participant asked the panelists to comment uponthe extent to which contemporary news reporting is char-acterized by advertiser-driven snippets or sound bytes.Scherer said that a savvy news consumer has moreinformation at his or her fingertips than ever before, butsifting through this barrage requires decision-makingalong the way. Moreover, just because the Internet offersa greater selection of information does not mean thatconsumers take proper advantage of it. This opens thedoor for a reliance on “low information signals” like thepresidential candidates’ tendency to make guest appear-ances on The View, for example.

Another participant returned to a theme that reverber-ated in both Hall’s and Scherer’s presentations – thequestion of why news organizations are not makingmoney on the Internet. Hall argued that select newsorganizations like the New York Times and theWashington Post do make money via their online ver-sions. Instead, the question is whether this will beenough to pay for “real” reporting in the future. Hallhypothesizes that product placement will enter storiesthemselves, or perhaps an equivalent of Nielsen ratingswill be applied to Internet news.

Scherer added that some publications already cater tothe interests of advertisers. He cited today’s greaternumber of food stories as an example.

Hall ended with a rhetorical question: Who will do thetough reporting that does not fulfill the needs anddesires of advertisers? She lamented that young peoplefeel that if something important occurs in the news, theywill hear about it. Hall, by comparison, actively seekssuch information, feeling she has an obligation to read adozen newspapers on a daily basis.

A related question inquired about the ability to harnessthe Internet in order to bring back “meaningful” report-ing. Scherer suggests that in many ways this is alreadyoccurring, that the Internet is organizing itself. Onlinenews consumers are more or less rational and seekcredible sources. He holds up the Drudge Report as themost prominent example.

Hall concurred with Scherer, pointing to the enormouspotential for online storytelling and the fact that manyaspects of this are already being utilized. However, mostof this ingenuity still originates from print reporters.

A fourth question returned to one of Scherer’s openingpoints: Why the prevalence of reader comments onmainstream news web sites, many of whom allowanonymous posting? Scherer claims that the currentbelief among news organizations is that the readersthemselves will self-regulate. If not, observers will removethe sexist, homophobic and otherwise disparagingremarks that populate these pages. More than anything,the news organizations themselves lack the power tocontrol such discourse.

Hall is particularly sensitive to unfair criticism given herrole on The O’Reilly Factor and the strong reactionsfrom viewers the program often elicits. As a result, she isnot a fan of anonymous posting by readers. That said,Hall allows that Minnesota Public Radio has been partic-ularly successful utilizing reader comments for the pur-poses of sourcing. She also finds that live online chatsessions between reporters and readers help to diffusesome of the tensions she has experienced.

A final question raised the issue of the tendency for theInternet to create “social cascades” where like-mindedpeople visit Web sites that carry an overt ideologicalbent, pushing them further to polarized extremes.Scherer acknowledges its presence, but contends thatindividuals are not permanently in these “columns.” Forinstance, the right-leaning Fox News Channel is nolonger a “rising star.”

Hall responded with a question of her own: “Do youwant to have your prejudices confirmed?” She refer-enced research that demonstrates that the opposite isoccurring where individuals encounter a range of ideasthat often conflict with their own world views. At thesame time, she acknowledged a more partisan bent toindividual news organizations, harkening back to earlierchapters in American history.

This chapter concludes with a list of sources eitherreferenced above or pertinent to the topic underconsideration.

Free Speech on the Internet, Blogs and in the Traditional Press

8


Center for Digital Democracy: Web 2.0 in the PublicInterest. Available Online: DemocraticMedia.org.

“Characters from The Simpsons More Well Known toAmericans Than Their First Amendment Freedoms,Survey Finds.” McCormick Foundation. AvailableOnline:McCormickFoundation.org/news/2006/pr030106.aspx.

Martin, Jonathan, and Ben Smith. 2008. “DrudgeKeeps Campaigns Guessing.” Politico. June 3.

Electronic Frontier Foundation: EFF is the leading civilliberties group defending your rights in the digitalworld. Available Online: EFF.org.

Free Speech 3.0: Student Expression in the DigitalAge. 2007. McCormick Foundation ConferenceSeries. Available Online:McCormickFoundation.org/publications/freespeech.aspx.

Media Matters for America: A progressive researchand information center dedicated to comprehensivelymonitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservativemisinformation in the U.S. media. Available Online:MediaMatters.org.

Media Research Center: A conservative media watch-dog group dedicated to bringing political balance tothe news and entertainment media. Available Online:MediaResearch.org.

Minnesota Public Radio: Headquartered in St. Paul,operates a regional network of 37 stations, coveringMinnesota and parts of Wisconsin, the Dakotas,Michigan, Iowa and Idaho. Available Online:Minnesota.PublicRadio.org.

Pew Internet & American Life Project: Exploresthe impact of the internet on children, families, com-munities, the work place, schools, health care andcivic/political life. Available Online:PewInternet.org/about.asp.

Pro Publica: Journalism in the Public Interest.Available Online: ProPublica.org.

Project Censored: The News That Didn’t Make theNews. Available Online: ProjectCensored.org.

9


Additional Reading and Research:


Topic: Free Speech, Blogs and the Traditional Press

Critical Engagement QuestionAre bloggers journalists? If so, are they worthy of thelegal protections provided to print and broadcastjournalists?

OverviewCurrently, no federal shield law exists; however, 31states have laws that provide some form of protectionfor journalists attempting to maintain the confidentialityof their sources. Advocates of a federal shield law haveargued that such legislation is necessary to protect alljournalists and eliminate inconsistencies from state tostate. Although several statutes including shield lawshave been introduced in Congress, to date, none havebecome law. One issue of contention is the extent towhich bloggers would be protected by a potential fed-eral shield law.

This lesson is designed to expose students to the bur-geoning world of blogs, and to place the work productof bloggers alongside that of traditional journalists. Inthis context, students will come to understand theimportance of a free press and the implications ofshield laws for journalists and citizens.

Objectives• To define the freedoms guaranteed to the press by

the First Amendment.• To highlight the basic tensions between the First

Amendment and the public interest in the context ofthe debate over a federal shield law.

• To consider the extent to which online speech is oris not protected by the First Amendment.

• To evaluate whether or not blogging is a form ofjournalism and therefore worthy of protectionsguaranteed to print and broadcast journalists.

• To expose students to a variety of media, helpingthem become critical consumers of news coverage.

StandardsNCSS: Themes 6, 8 and 10.NCHS: Era 10 Standard 2D,Illinois: Goal 14, Learning Standards A, B, and D;Goal 18, Learning Standard C.

Student MaterialsPrint hard copies, or provide students with Internetaccess to the following articles:

• Hudson, Jr., David L. 2005. “Blogging.” FirstAmendment Center. November. Available Online:FirstAmendmentCenter.org/Press/topic.aspx?topic=blogging

• Specter, Arlen. 2008. “Why We Need a Shield Law.”Washington Post. May 5, page A17. Available Online:WashingtonPost.com/wpdyn/content/arti-cle/2008/05/04/AR2008050401597.html

• Mukasey, Michael. 2008. “No Need for Shield Law.”USA Today. April 17, page 12A. Available Online:USAToday.com/printedition/news/20080417/oppose17.art.htm

The first article listed above, Hudson’s “Blogging,”should be read in advance of the lesson. The remain-ing two articles on the proposed national shield law willbe utilized during class in the midst of the lesson.

Time and Grade LevelOne 45-minute high school class period.Recommended for ages 9-12.

Warm-UpFacilitate a concept formation brainstorm with studentsin order to develop working definitions of journalistsand bloggers, highlighting the similarities and differ-ences between the two. Have students write their ideason the worksheet provided, then, ask them to sharewith the class at large. Compile these ideas on theblackboard or a sheet of butcher paper for the entireclass to observe and utilize throughout the balance ofthe lesson.1. List at least five qualities that define the work of a

journalist.

2. Next, using the qualities listed in Question 1, write aone-sentence definition of a journalist.

3. Repeat this exercise for bloggers, listing at leastthree qualities that define them.

4. Now, using the qualities listed in Question 3, write aone-sentence definition of a blogger.

5. Compare your definitions of a journalist and a blog-ger. How are they similar? What are the differences?Finally, is a blogger a journalist?

Lesson Plan

10



Activity1. Assign students a partner for the duration of this

lesson. Each partner, while working together, isexpected to complete the attached worksheet.

2. Distribute copies of or provide Internet accessto Specter’s “Why We Need a Shield Law”and Mukasey’s “No Need for Shield Law.”Ask students to read these articles, and thendraw on them to complete the assignment.

3. Discuss each team’s findings with the class at large.Ask for volunteers to share their conclusions, orsolicit information by calling on students.

Extensions1. Ask students to compare the coverage of a single

news event by the traditional media and by blog-gers. Possible sources for traditional media includethe “Timely News” section of the Freedom Museum’sweb site (FreedomMuseum.US/TimelyNews).Also, refer students to the Freedom Museum Blog,FanningTheFlames.Blogspot.com.

2. Assign a position paper written in support or inopposition to the establishment of a federal shieldlaw. It should also discuss the extent to which shieldlaw protections should or should not be extendedto bloggers.

11


1. Read the excerpt of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution below. In your own words, what does “freedomof the press” mean?“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridgingthe freedom of speech, or of the press…”

2. Read “Why We Need a Shield Law” by Arlen Specter. List his three most compelling arguments for the passage of a federalshield law.

3. Read “No Need for Shield Law” by Michael Mukasey. Once more, list his three most compelling arguments against a federalshield law.

4. Which argument, Specter’s or Mukasey’s, do you find most compelling? Why?

5. Is a federal shield law necessary to protect freedom of the press as defined by the First Amendment? Explain.

6. Based upon your definitions of journalists and bloggers, and also your comparisons and contrasts of the two, are bloggers wor-thy of protection by the First Amendment freedom of the press? A federal shield law? Share your reasoning for each conclusion.

Student Worksheet Name:

Directions: Please complete the following steps with your partner. Each of you is responsible for submittinga completed copy of this assignment. Be prepared to discuss your findings.

Free Speech, Blogs and the Traditional Press

12


Steve Rendall, senior analyst at Fairness andAccuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and co-host ofCounterSpin, FAIR’s national radio show, and

Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal andJudicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, present-ed dramatically different takes on the proposedrestoration of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy enforcedby the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)from 1949 through 1987. Their verbal sparring contin-ued during a contentious round of audience ques-tions. Their debate is summarized in the pages thatfollow, along with recommendations for additionalreading and research to supplement the designatedlesson plan on the topic. First, a bit of history on theFairness Doctrine is provided to add context to thecontemporary debate over its potential revival.

The Radio Act of 1927 served as a prelude to theFairness Doctrine, mandating the FCC’s forerunner, theFederal Radio Commission (FRC), to grant licenses onthe condition that stations served the “public conven-ience, interest or necessity.” One year later, the FRCcalled for broadcasters to demonstrate “due regard forthe opinions of others.”

The FCC (created in 1934) adopted the FairnessDoctrine as a formal rule in 1949 under the premise thatradio and television stations that used the public air-waves to disseminate their messages played a role of“trustee” and were thus obligated to cover controversialmatters of public importance through a discussion ofconflicting viewpoints. The concern at the time was thatthe growing number of applicants for radio stations waslimited by the available frequencies, raising concernsthat broadcasters would promote a single perspective.Through a FCC mandate, broadcasters were insteadrequired to present multiple viewpoints.

The Fairness Doctrine never carried the force of federallaw; it was merely a policy enforced by the FCC. By1967, it encompassed rules addressing personal attacksand political editorializing and, in 1971, required stationsto demonstrate attempts to locate and report on mattersof local concern as a condition of license renewal. In1969, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionali-ty of the Fairness Doctrine upon its challenge by aPennsylvania radio station. Writing for the majority in thecase Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, JusticeByron White wrote, “A license permits broadcasting, butthe licensee has no constitutional right to be the onewho holds the license or to monopolize a…frequency tothe exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in

the First Amendment, which prevents the Governmentfrom requiring a licensee to share his frequency withothers. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not theright of the broadcasters, which is paramount.”

The Fairness Doctrine was not enforced without itsdetractors, many of them members of the press whoresented gathering multiple viewpoints when reportingon a given issue. Some saw it as an attack on the FirstAmendment freedom of the press itself. Most concern-ing, however, was the fact that many avoided reportingon some controversial issues altogether, constituting a“chilling effect,” the opposite intent of the policy.

In the wake of the Red Lion decision, the SupremeCourt slowly began to chip away at the legal underpin-nings of the Fairness Doctrine. Even in the aforemen-tioned decision, the Court held that if the doctrine everplaced a damper on freedom of speech, its underlyingconstitutionality must be reconsidered. Five years laterin the Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974)case, the Court held that the Fairness Doctrine“inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the varietyof public debate.”

By the 1980s, the rationale for the Fairness Doctrinediminished given the proliferation of cable televisionand the numerous news alternatives it offered. Moreover,the Reagan Administration was inclined to pursue pathstoward deregulation in most areas of governmentinvolvement. By 1984, the doctrine was damaged furtherwhen the Court concluded in FCC v. League of WomenVoters that it was flawed even in its rationale, and it limit-ed rather than advanced the breadth of public debate.

The FCC issued a report in 1985 suggesting that theFairness Doctrine was no longer achieving its desiredends, that it was in fact having a “chilling effect” andmight conflict with the principles of the First Amendment.In 1986, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that theFairness Doctrine was not mandated by Congress andthus the FCC had no obligation to enforce the policy.The next year, the FCC rescinded the doctrine in itsentirety.

Separate attempts by Congress to revive the FairnessDoctrine by statute in 1987 and 1991 were underminedby Reagan’s veto pen in the case of the former and thethreat of another by President George H. Bush in thelatter scenario. More recently, several Democratic mem-bers of Congress have suggested that the FairnessDoctrine should be revived, including House SpeakerNancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL)and John Kerry (D-MA). In the 109th Congress,

Chapter 2:Should the United States Return to the Fairness Doctrine?

13


Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), along with16 other co-sponsors, proposed the Media OwnershipReform Act to “restore the Fairness Doctrine.” To date,there has been no parallel action in the 110th Congress.

It is in this historical context and contemporary thicketthat Steve Rendall and Todd Gaziano entered, address-ing the merits of the Fairness Doctrine. Rendall spokefirst, followed by Gaziano, and then the two of themfielded questions from the audience.

Rendall began by tracing the long history of theFairness Doctrine, arguing that nowadays it stands asan “ambiguous boogeyman” and that many of the coun-terarguments waged against it are “factually untrue.”He stated that in the United States there are roughly13,500 radio and television licenses in a nation of 300million people. Rendall claims that the licenses are“gifts” to individual broadcasters that represent “superspeech rights.”

The major networks are able to reach Americans“every day, wherever they want,” says Rendall. More-over, he argues, these airwaves belong to the public.Together, these two points constitute his rationale for therevival of the Fairness Doctrine. In comparison to news-papers, for example, an individual can print a counter-argument to the editorial pages of the New York Times,but this same person cannot create his or her own radioor television station to counter ABC or WGN Radio. Hemakes reference to the majority opinion in the Red Lioncase, where the interests of viewers and listeners wereconsidered paramount.

Rendall also questions those who make the FairnessDoctrine something that it never was in practice. Hecontends that while it was in place in some form oranother over the course of six decades, no station everlost its license under its stipulations. In addition, it didnot require equal time for opposing viewpoints but,rather, merely addressing them during the same timeslot. Finally, the FCC did not even monitor compliancewith the Fairness Doctrine; it was entirely citizen-driven.

Rendall strikes pre-emptively at the argumentsadvanced by opponents of the Fairness Doctrine,Gaziano included. First, he dismisses the notion that therepeal of the Fairness Doctrine brought about flourishingof public debate, talk radio included. To the contrary,Rendall contends that talk radio was a moneymakinggenre as early as 1960. Also, political talk radio hasalways been conservative, he suggests, for it was “bornin backlash.” Its expansion in the ashes of the FairnessDoctrine is a mere coincidence according to Rendall;

most music-oriented stations fled to the FM dial, whilenew technologies made national syndication more prac-tical. As a result, many local radio hosts, Rush Limbaughincluded, went national.

Second, Rendall casts aside the notion that theFairness Doctrine’s reinstatement would represent thedemise of talk radio. To the contrary, he demurs, talkradio was always seen as the very embodiment of thedoctrine. Third, he reiterated that the Fairness Doctrinedid not mandate equal time or the balancing of views.

Fourth, Rendall dismisses the argument that thescarcity rationale of the doctrine is undermined by theproliferation of new media options. Instead, he argues,radio and television frequencies remain fixed in number,as well as the primary deliverers of information of publicconcern. Fifth and finally, Rendall refutes the claim thattelevision and radio stations experienced a chilling effectduring the 1980s. However, he admits that the FairnessDoctrine was used by both the Kennedy and NixonAdministrations to intimidate broadcasters, but empha-sizes that these tactics were illegal.

Gaziano began his presentation by contending thatRendall did not meet the burden of proof required toreinstate the Fairness Doctrine. As a self-described “FirstAmendment zealot,” he offered three arguments againstthe doctrine’s revival.

Gaziano contended that the Fairness Doctrine wasunconstitutional when the Supreme Court first consid-ered its merits in 1969. The justices, he argued, “erred intheir factual analysis.” At the time, with only three majornational television networks, the scarcity argument heldsome water, he admits. However, if the doctrine wereapplied to print media it would be “flatly unconstitution-al.” The same holds for cable companies that receivemonopolies in many locales. With the emergence ofInternet radio, not to mention podcasts, Gaziano sug-gests that citizens are afforded more opportunities thanever before to access a myriad of views.

Gaziano also cited the 1986 D.C. Circuit case refer-enced above, where the FCC noted that the FairnessDoctrine was probably unconstitutional at the time givenchanges within the media environment. Moreover, hecontends that strict judicial scrutiny must be applied toits implementation due to the fact that it governs politicalspeech. On these grounds, Gaziano predicts that itwould “flunk” this test. Furthermore, aside from argu-ments about “fairness” and “balance,” he argues that itscontemporary proponents are concerned about conser-vative dominance of airwaves. With a note of sarcasm,

Should the United States Return to the Fairness Doctrine?

14



Gaziano instructed them to spend their energy assistingAir America. As an aside, Gaziano admits that conserva-tives do dominate talk radio, but he believes that the leftdominates the Internet.

Gaziano’s second point centers on the argument thatthe Fairness Doctrine is “ripe for abuse.” Such infringe-ments on First Amendment rights, he suggests, are notincidental but “unavoidable” given the political nature ofthe FCC. At the inception of the doctrine, a socialistradio station was threatened, and another license wasdenied to a Chicago station devoted to workers’ rights.

Gaziano said that the chief monitors of the FairnessDoctrine were the Democratic and Republican NationalCommittees, along with presidential administrations. TheDNC went so far as to establish listening posts for moni-toring purposes. Moreover, the Johnson Administrationthreatened small radio stations who supported his 1964opponent, Senator Barry Goldwater, with economicsanctions, and the abuses of the Nixon Administrationwere even greater. Collectively, these bodies requiredthat coverage be “fair,” and also address “all sides” of agiven issue.

Gaziano’s third and final argument centers on a listof what he calls “practical reasons” against the revivalof the Fairness Doctrine. For one, he claims that journal-ists will have an awareness of the government’s pres-ence looking over their shoulders. Because of this, theimplications of running an individual story might becomea determining factor in deciding whether or not to

pursue that story.Secondly, he revisits Rendall’s point about the growth

of talk radio preceding the repeal of the FairnessDoctrine. He contends that there were no news talk

stations as of 1987, and that talk radio as a genre ex-ploded after this date. News talk stations began to flour-ish after 1990, along with religious and sports-themedoutlets. During this period, the number of top-40 stationsdeclined significantly. The basis of these conclusions isa 1997 study conducted by Hazlett and Sosa.

Thirdly, Gaziano concludes that radio and televisionstations did not practice a great deal of nuance in cover-ing opposing viewpoints. Instead, he argues, they pre-sented stereotypes of the other side. Fourth, he asks,where does “equal time” begin and end? Must we pres-ent the racist viewpoint? How about Creationists andskeptics of global warming? Finally, he rests his case onFirst Amendment groups, offering more speech as thebest solution to “bad speech.” Also, he argues that theFirst Amendment was never meant to subsidize theopposing viewpoint, a practice embodied in the basicframework of the Fairness Doctrine.

Before Gaziano and Rendall entertained questionsfrom participants, they engaged in a back-and-forthrebuttal. Rendall feels that Gaziano fails to address theequal time “myth” in the context of his counterargument.Furthermore, he dismisses Gaziano’s First Amendmentarguments against the Fairness Doctrine on the groundsthat broadcasting is “different” than print and other forms

Rush Limbaugh, the king ofconservative talk radio, seesthe revival of the FairnessDoctrine as an attempt toundermine conservativedominance of the AM dial.

15


16


of media; therefore, he concludes, the First Amendmentdoes not apply. Rendall acknowledges the explosion ofmedia outlets in the intervening decades since theFairness Doctrine’s repeal, yet he contends that broad-cast channels still dominate; he does not advocateapplying the doctrine to cable television. More than any-thing, Rendall made clear that the public interest is para-mount, and that large corporations censor the newsprovided via their outlets, thus creating an even greaterneed today for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.

Gaziano countered by invoking the First Amendmentonce more, contending that Rendall’s policy argumentsconflict with its core principles. He also faults Rendall forhis failure to address the potential for political abuse bythe FCC via the presidential administration in power atany given time. Furthermore, the Fairness Doctrine neverqualified what constituted “controversial” issues. Thus,when the doctrine was in use, Gaziano contends thatnetworks learned to cover “controversial” issues of littleuse or interest to the general public.

Their rebuttals complete, Gaziano and Rendall thenentertained questions from the assembled audience ofparticipants. One participant asked about the extent towhich broadcasts were “dumbed down” due to theFairness Doctrine. In response, Gaziano returned to hiscontention that the doctrine is ripe for abuse by the FCCand that local television and radio stations are mostthreatened by its revival.

Rendall acknowledged the pressures that newsroomsfaced during the Fairness Doctrine era, but shifted thefocus once more to the public interest. He contends thatthe “dumbing down” has occurred in the wake of thedoctrine’s repeal. For example, local coverage of elec-tions has all but ended. The Fairness Doctrine requirednews coverage, and Rendall holds this up as the primaryreason many stations oppose its revival.

Another participant asked why individual stations didnot make public their concerns about government pres-sure on the content of their programs while the FairnessDoctrine was in practice. Rendall issued a brief retort,positing that if all government programs are ripe forabuse, should we then, along this line of reasoning,abolish the IRS? Gaziano returned to his outrage thatpoliticians, namely the FCC, were in charge of assessingpolitical fairness, reiterating his concerns about FirstAmendment infringements.

A third participant pondered whether the revival of theFairness Doctrine would be worth the effort given theburgeoning ranks of people who access the Internet for

their news. Rendall remained steadfast that the publicairwaves belong to the people. While acknowledgingthat the Internet made more outlets for matters of publicconcern available, Rendall returned to the public owner-ship model once more, maintained his belief that thepublic airwaves belong to the people.

Gaziano responded with an argument about competi-tion, returning to Rendall’s earlier example about theease by which an individual could compete with informa-tion disseminated by a newspaper in comparison toradio or television stations. Gaziano suggested that it ismuch easier to start an Internet radio station than com-pete with the Washington Post.

Next, Rendall was asked by a participant to explainwhy the First Amendment does not apply to broadcastmedia. Rendall reasoned that since broadcast spectrumsare not available to all by law, the First Amendment can-not be invoked. However, given the contemporary com-position of the Supreme Court, he holds little doubt thatit would find the Fairness Doctrine unconstitutional.

Gaziano held that the FM radio band was in its infancyin 1969 at the time of the Red Lion decision, and thelandscape has since changed. Even though there isless choice in print than contemporary radio stations,the Fairness Doctrine, if reinstated, would apply onlyto the latter.

Rendall was also asked if his advocacy of the FairnessDoctrine had anything to do with restoring just that –fairness – to the broadcast spectrum. He denied that fair-ness stood as his foremost concern, re-emphasizing thepublic role that such media outlets should be obligatedto perform as a condition of their licenses. By Rendall’sstandards, the provision of information of public concernby itself, then, is more important than fairness in itspresentation.

A final question cornered Gaziano on the topic ofmedia consolidation, specifically his lack of concernabout the phenomenon. He replied that the “big badcorporations are losing bucketsful of money,” whilesimultaneously shedding the power that FairnessDoctrine’s proponents fear. Gaziano does admit, how-ever, that antitrust standards are necessary. Separatefrom media consolidation, his primary concern rests withthe notion that the doctrine requires “fair and balancedcoverage,” a gargantuan task given that there are morethan two sides to any issue.

The sources that follow were referenced either duringthe course of the Fairness Doctrine debate recountedabove or speak to the doctrine in greater detail.


17


Hazlett, Thomas W., and David W. Sosa. 1997. “Wasthe Fairness Doctrine a “Chilling Effect?” Evidencefrom the Postderegulation Radio Market.” The Journalof Legal Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, (Jan.), pp. 279–301.

Limburg, Val E. “Fairness Doctrine: U.S. BroadcastingPolicy.” The Museum of Broadcast Communications.Available Online:Museum.TV/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fair-nessdoct.htm.

“Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC.” Oyez: U.S.Supreme Court Media. Available Online:Oyez.org/cases/1960–1969/1968/1968_2_2.

Rendall, Steve. 2005. “The Fairness Doctrine: HowWe Lost It, and Why We Need It Back.” Extra!,(Jan./Feb.), pp. 24–28. Available Online:FAIR.org/index.php?page=2053.

Thierer, Adam. 1993. “Why the Fairness Doctrine IsAnything But Fair.” Heritage Foundation. Oct. 29.Available Online:Heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm.



Lesson Plan

Topic: The Fairness Doctrine

Critical Engagement QuestionShould the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated?

OverviewThe Fairness Doctrine, first employed in 1927 and laterformalized in 1949, established requirements for broad-casters who were granted permission to use the publicairwaves. They were issued a mandate to devoteairtime to contrasting views on controversial mattersof public interest. In August 1987, the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) abolished thedoctrine. Since 1987 there have been several failedattempts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The debateover the doctrine provides fertile ground for studentsto explore divergent views on the apparent tensionbetween free speech and the public interest.

This lesson is intended to help students become criti-cal consumers of information by first exploring a rangeof news coverage across several media forms. Later,they are asked to evaluate arguments in favor of andopposition to the reinstatement of the FairnessDoctrine.

Objectives• To help students develop the necessary skills to

assess the credibility of media sources. Upon com-pletion of this assignment, students will be able tocomb media for coverage of controversial issues ofpublic concern, to assess whether or not multipleperspectives with respect to these issues are offered,and to detect ideological bias in the presentation ofthese matters.

• To expose students to the current debate surround-ing a possible reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

• To situate this debate alongside an analysis of con-temporary media coverage.

• To present the tension between the First Amendmentand the public interest in the context of the FairnessDoctrine debate.

StandardsNCSS: Themes 6, 8 and 10NCHS: Era 10, Standard 2D.Illinois: Goal 14, Learning Standards A, B, D; Goal 18,Learning Standard C.

Student MaterialsIndividual copies of “The Fairness Doctrine: StudentResearch Guide” (presented on page 20). Also, printhard copies, or provide students with Internet accessto the following articles:

• Rendall, Steve. 2005. “The Fairness Doctrine:How We Lost It, and Why We Need It Back.” Extra!,(Jan./Feb.), pp. 24–28. Available Online:FAIR.org/index.php?page=2053.

• Limburg, Val E. “Fairness Doctrine: U.S.Broadcasting Policy.” The Museum of BroadcastCommunications. Available Online:Museum.TV/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fair-nessdoct.htm.

• “Editorial: ‘Fairness’ Is Censorship.” 2008.Washington Times. June 17. Available Online:WashingtonTimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/fairness-is-censorship.

Time and Grade LevelOne week in advance of lesson to complete Part A of“The Fairness Doctrine: Student Research Guide,” andone 45-minute high school class period to completeParts B and C. Recommended for grades 9-12.

Warm-UpAsk students the following questions and lead a dis-cussion of the pertinent issues embedded within them.1. Where do you get your news?

2. Is radio an important form of media? How about net-work television? How do these two media differ fromtheir counterparts, namely newspapers, cable televi-sion, and satellite radio? (Hint: they use a limitednumber of frequencies regulated by the UnitedStates government.)

3. What does it mean to be fair? When covering con-troversial issues of public concern, do the mediahave a responsibility to present multiple perspec-tives on a given issue?

4. Is there an ideological bias in media coverage ofnews? If so, what forms does it take? Do the mediahave an obligation to be unbiased?

18


Activity1. Distribute one copy of “The Fairness Doctrine:

Student Research Guide” to each student. Askthem to complete Part A over the course of the nextweek. This involves analyzing several forms of mediacoverage. Radio and television news analysis shouldoccur in half-hour increments, and the newspaperanalysis should address all front-page stories.

Students should begin by listing the source ofmedia they monitored, followed by the date andtime of their analysis. Then, they are asked to listcontroversial matters of public interest covered, andthe number of perspectives offered. Next, ideologicalbias, if detected, should be noted. A space fornotes is provided to help jog their memories forthe purposes of class discussion.

2. Assign students to work in pairs to complete Parts Band C of “The Fairness Doctrine: Student ResearchGuide.”

3. Ask each pair to analyze the data collected in Part Aof the assignment to complete the three questionslisted in Part B. The questions consider the extent towhich controversial matters of public concern werecovered by the media sources analyzed, the pres-ence of multiple perspectives in this coverage, andany ideological undertones that accompanied thiscoverage. Students are to search for differenceson each of these fronts across the sources theyanalyzed.

4. Lead a brief discussion of student findings in Part B.

5. Move next to Part C. Distribute copies of Limburg’s“Fairness Doctrine: U.S. Broadcasting Policy” toeach student. Ask them to read this individually,then discuss with their partner. Finally, pairs shouldwrite one paragraph (no more than four sentences)defining the Fairness Doctrine in their own words.

6. Distribute copies of Rendall’s “The FairnessDoctrine: How We Lost It, and Why We Need ItBack” and the Washington Times editorial “‘Fairness’Is Censorship” to each student. Ask one partnerto read the Rendall article, and the other theWashington Times editorial. Then, instruct pairsto complete Questions 4 and 5 of Part C.

7. Question 6, parts a through d, asks students toplace the Fairness Doctrine debate beside that oftheir own analysis of media coverage, predictinghow the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine mightimpact coverage of controversial issues of publicconcern, the offering of multiple perspectives, andthe ideological tone of coverage. In balance, pairsare then asked to decide if the Fairness Doctrineshould be revived.

8. Question 7 asks pairs to consider the FairnessDoctrine in the context of First Amendment protec-tions of freedom of speech and the press. It pre-supposes some knowledge of the First Amendment,but any confusion can be fleshed out in the contextof the class discussion that follows.

9. Lead a class discussion of Part C of “The FairnessDoctrine: Student Research Guide.” Ask forvoluntary responses, or call upon pairs selectively.

Extensions1. Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine consider its

basic premise a form of government censorship.Ask students to visit the Freedom Museum’s onlineexhibit titled “Marketplace of Ideas” (http://www.free-dommuseum.us/?section=a8) where censorship isdefined and historic and contemporary examples ofsymbols, colors, films, books, and art that have beenchallenged in the United States and across theworld are presented.

2. Assign a position paper where students supporttheir personal position on the Fairness Doctrine withevidence gleaned from both their media analysisand exposure to the actual debate over theDoctrine’s reinstatement.


19


Type of Source Date and Matters of Number of Ideological NotesMedia Time Public Interest Perspectives Bias

(if relevant) Covered Offered? (check one)(list all) (check one)

Local Talk __ One __ ConservativeRadio __ Two __ Liberal

__ Many __ None

National __ One __ ConservativePublic __ Two __ LiberalRadio (NPR) __ Many __ None

Local __ One __ ConservativeTelevision __ Two __ LiberalNews __ Many __ None

National __ One __ ConservativeNetwork __ Twoq __ LiberalTelevision __ Many __ NoneNews

National __ One __ ConservativeCable __ Two __ LiberalNews __ Many __ None

Local or __ One __ ConservativeNational __ Two __ LiberalNewspaper __ Many __ None


Directions: Please complete Part A, an analysis of news coverage across several media alternatives, and cometo class prepared to discuss your findings. Parts B and C involve work with a partner considering your earliermedia analysis in light of a current debate surrounding the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

Part A: Over the course of the next week, you are to monitor media coverage as specified in the chart below.Analyses of radio and television programming should include half-hour segments of each broadcast for a singleday. The newspaper analysis should focus only on the front-page articles for a single day.

Complete the chart by listing the media source, and date and time of broadcast. Next, list all matters of publicinterest covered. Then, count the number of perspectives offered in coverage of controversial matters of publicinterest. Finally, assess whether or not you detected an ideological bias to the programming. Use the finalcolumns for any notes to remind you of observations relevant to your analysis.

The Fairness Doctrine: Student Research Guide

20


Part B: Please discuss and respond to the following questions with your partner. Be prepared to share yourresults with the class at large before we begin Part C of this assignment.

1. Looking at your completed media analysis chart, to what extent were controversial matters of public interest addressed by thevarious sources?

2. When controversial matters of public interest were addressed, were multiple perspectives offered? Did some media do a betterjob than others of offering more than one viewpoint? Explain.

3. Did you find an ideological bent to any of the coverage you analyzed? If yes, please specify differences across these media.

Part C: With your partner, complete this final exercise considering the Fairness Doctrine in light of yourmedia analysis.

1. Read the following article published on the Museum of Broadcast Communications Web site that provides an overview of theFairness Doctrine: Museum.TV/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm.

2. In a short paragraph of no more than four sentences, summarize the Fairness Doctrine.

3. Each partner is to read one of the following two articles. The first, published by Steve Rendall of Fairness and Accuracy inReporting (FAIR), presents an argument in favor of the revival of the Fairness Doctrine: FAIR.org/index.php?page=2053.The second, an editorial in the Washington Times, presents a counter argument against the Fairness Doctrine:WashingtonTimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/fairness-is-censorship/.

4. After reading one of the two articles referenced in Question 3, identify three key arguments in favor of or against the reinstatementof the Fairness Doctrine and write them in the space below. One partner should list the arguments in favor of reinstating theFairness Doctrine, and the other the arguments in opposition.

(Circle one)

In Favor/Opposed A.

In Favor/Opposed B.

In Favor/Opposed C.


21


22


5. Share the three key arguments you identified in Question 4 with your partner, and he or she will do the same for you. Summarizethese in the space below.

(Circle one)

In Favor/Opposed A.

In Favor/Opposed B.

In Favor/Opposed C.

6. Return to your analysis of the media coverage you observed over the course of the past week (Part B) and use this informationto answer the following questions.

a. In your judgment, would the Fairness Doctrine help make coverage of controversial matters of public interest more consistentacross the media? Explain.

b. Would the Fairness Doctrine ensure that multiple perspectives were offered when controversial matters of public interestare covered?

c. What impact might the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine have on the ideological bias present or missing frommedia coverage?

d. Your responses to Questions 6a–c considered together, would you recommend that the Fairness Doctrine be reinstated?Why or why not?

7. Aside from the merits of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine from the perspective of the quality of media coverage, would itsrevival conflict with freedom of speech and the press as included within the First Amendment? Explain. See below for therelated passage of the First Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridgingthe freedom of speech, or of the press…”


23

Chapter 3:Should Reporting Be Limited During Times of War?

Pete Williams, an NBC News correspondentbased in Washington, D.C., and Victoria Clarke,senior advisor for Communications and

Government Affairs at Comcast Corporation – bothformer Secretaries of Defense for Public Affairs –gave separate lectures on their experiences servingas the chief liaison between the Pentagon and thepress. Afterward, both entertained participant ques-tions. An account of their respective presentationsfollows, along with suggestions for additional readingand research to supplement the associated lessonplan on the topic.

Williams began by promptly diving into the matterat hand, suggesting that on the battlefield during timesof war, the interests of the press are not paramount.His insights are drawn from his experiences with theUnited States’ military invasion of Panama; OperationsDesert Shield and Storm; and the peacekeeping missionin Somalia.

The contemporary term used to describe reporters’battlefield coverage of the U.S. military’s excursions is“embedding,” a word Williams considers “unfortunate”because it implies a relationship the press does not wishto convey. Embedded reporters follow and live with asingle military unit for the duration of their assignment.Major news networks also assign “independent”reporters to cover military combat from a broader per-spective, though their numbers are dwindling. Despitehis reservations with the term “embedded,” Williamsallows that there is a need to keep information flowingfrom the battlefield via the media in order to maintainpublic support. In an era of an all-volunteer military, thegeneral public is increasingly distanced from its culture.Today, he contends, in order to maintain public supportfor foreign interventions, “Going overseas and winningisn’t enough.”

Williams also holds that it is wrong for members of themilitary to assume that the press is not to be trusted andthat their coverage of conflict is unfair. Reporters play acritical role in asking the tough questions, he argues,and in the process hold the military accountable. Thisrelationship is naturally adversarial given the differencesin culture between these respective institutions.However, common ground is attainable in an environ-ment of collaboration.

For example, during Operation Desert Storm, the mili-tary struggled with how to report casualty informationgiven that its practices dated back to the Vietnam War.Members of the press attempted to change the compila-tion process of such data in order to make reporting

more timely. The military made their task easier, too, byreleasing a greater amount of information related tocasualties and conducting two daily press briefings onthis subject and others.

Williams next addressed the age-old question duringtimes of war: Should there be military review of wartimecorrespondence prior to transmission of information?On this point, he stresses that he is not talking aboutcensorship, merely collaboration. Williams claims thatit was widely practiced previously, particularly duringWorld War II and the Korean War. He defends suchreview on the grounds that commanders have a legalobligation to protect the lives of the men and womenunder their command.

Moreover, Williams suggests that most reporters whocover war do not have previous military experience.Some of their reporting may have military significance,he contends, and they may not realize this beforehand,thus the need for military review. Ultimately, Williamsclaims that most reporters travel to places of conflict incooperation with the military. He argues that militaryreview of their work product is a logical extension ofthis partnership.

Williams concluded with a claim that the adversarialnature of the relationship between the media and themilitary changes once reporters interact with troops. Hemade mention of the renowned book Four Theories ofthe Press published in 1957 by Siebert, Peterson andSchramm. The work addressed the historical, philosoph-ical and international underpinnings of the modernpress, and articulated four models of reporting:authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility andSoviet totalitarian.

Excluding authoritarian and totalitarian models whenspeaking of press freedom in the United States, Williamsfocuses on libertarian and social responsibility theories,ultimately siding with the latter. Whereas the libertarianmodel places responsibility for the discerning of truthand falsehood on the backs of readers, social responsi-bility theory rests the burden on the media itself. It callsfor moving beyond objective reporting, where the pressprovides analysis, explanation and interpretation.

This meshes well with the overarching theme ofWilliams’ presentation, as he made a compelling casefor collaboration between the military and the mediadespite their naturally adversarial relationship. He endedby holding up the fact that the United States – specifical-ly the Pentagon – and South Korea are the only coun-tries in the world where the press operates in the samebuilding as the military.


Should Reporting Be Limited During Times of War?

24

Williams then opened the floor to questions from con-ference participants. The first asked if the press isengaging in self-censorship and is less objective in itsreporting because of embedding. Williams rejected thisthesis in its entirety, suggesting that the overall claimsabout a state of conflict between the military and themedia is overblown. Furthermore, the actual militaryoperation on the ground is quite different from popularperception, thus the value of embedded reporters.

A second participant posed a hypothetical question:“Would reporting policies change if war was declaredby an act of Congress?” The Korean War, Vietnam War,and the two Gulf conflicts were referenced as unde-clared wars. Williams held that changes would be pos-sible, as the military would be given the legal authorityto employ censorship. However, he suggested thatcensorship is probably “untenable” from a contempo-rary political perspective.

In response to a third question, Williams reflectedspecifically on the military-media relationship in theinvasion of Panama and intervention in Somalia. Heremarked that media accommodation in Panama wasdisastrous and left it at that. In Somalia, he claims thatreporters were not stationed at any one place by themilitary. Instead, they traveled on their own. Williamsacknowledged failure in this instance, too, for therewas little thought as to how the needs of reporterswould be fulfilled.

The final question focused on how news organiza-tions were to find a trusted source on the battlefield.Williams held that it is impossible to speak with bothsides when embedded in a military unit. However,many news outlets have bureaus in both warring coun-tries and can supplement their on the ground coveragewith the view from afar.

Williams exited the stage and was followed by hiseventual successor at the Pentagon, Victoria Clarke. Shebegan with an admission that she panicked when shewas first appointed to the position, but heeded theadvice of her predecessors, Williams included, who cor-rectly claimed that she would learn more from Pentagonreporters than anyone else. Clarke also found that shewas well-staffed during her time at the Pentagon and,without them, felt that she would have been “completelyoverwhelmed.”

Most of Clarke’s presentation focused on embedding.As she tackled the issue from day one at the Pentagon,she studied what went wrong in the past and concludedthat many of the problems inherent to embedding wouldnever be resolved. Like Williams, Clarke finds a funda-

mental tension between the military and the media, butconsiders the tension “healthy” nonetheless.

Clarke claims that there is nothing new about journal-ists going into combat; rather, it has been standardpractice since the Civil War. However, embedding inthe past, she suggests, was both quantitatively andqualitatively different.

Like Williams, Clarke recognizes that there is no wayfor the military to conduct combat operations abroadwithout public support. With this in mind, she used themethodical planning process employed by the military tobuild the embedding program. It was an arduousprocess, but Clarke claims it produced “side benefits”like raising the confidence levels of members of themedia in the Pentagon. She suggests that the militaryand civilian military leadership both understood theimportance of these undertakings. Clarke hoped that thetruth of battlefield developments would emerge and feltthat the general public could “handle it.” This she feltshe owed to the men and women in uniform who wererisking their lives on the front lines.

Unlike the previous speaker, Clarke felt that she wasmore “forward leaning” in terms of media access to mili-tary operations. To illustrate her point, she made refer-ence to the controversy involving Geraldo Rivera duringthe early days of the most recent Iraq invasion. For draw-ing lines in the sand to reveal troop movements to view-ers, he was thrown out of his embedded position, butreturned days later upon the request of the battalion heaccompanied.

Altogether, Clarke’s tenure at the Pentagon spannedthe first six months of the Iraq War. During this time, sheconcluded that the embedding process was workinggiven the few problems it produced. She admits that itseffectiveness is still being evaluated by the war colleges,but left her post with the feeling that most of the militaryleadership she encountered held “healthy and enlight-ened” attitudes regarding the institution’s relationshipwith the press.

She did make special mention of the Abu Ghraibprison scandal which occurred after her departure.Without any specific knowledge of its uncovering, Clarkefeels that more transparency in the operation may haveprevented the controversy altogether. Moreover, shemade note that General Peter Pace, former Chairmanof the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believed that greater trans-parency in terms of media access to a war’s prosecutionwould help identify the small minority of troops who didnot abide by orders.


Clarke also fielded questions from the audience. Thefirst centered upon how the Pentagon makes certain thatimages of battlefield casualties disseminated by themedia do not precede family notification. Clarke heldthat the Pentagon cannot prevent the taking of such pic-tures or footage altogether, but it can strongly requestsensitivity on account of the media in this domain.

A second question related specifically to the embed-ding process. The participant asked whether there wasa feeling among troops that reporters embedded intheir unit lack the same loyalty to the cause, makingthem nervous about their presence as a result. Clarkeremarked that comradeship itself keeps young enlis-tees committed to the cause. The Pentagon took onthe role of preparing reporters for their combat cover-age, running them through boot camps tailored specifi-cally to this purpose. She admits that there is no wayto possibly replicate what takes place on the field ofbattle, yet feels that it does provide reporters with aflavor of what lies ahead.

The same participant asked a follow-up question:specifically, how does the military control reporters whoblog about their experiences in combat? Clarke con-fessed that blogs were a non-issue during her tenure atthe Pentagon. Now, she feels that there is no ready wayto control their proliferation today. Instead, Clarke sees aneed to establish a working relationship between blog-gers and military brass in order to help the formerunderstand the consequences of their writing. Shepointed out another benefit of these blogs: they allowreporters’ family members to know that they are safe.

Clarke was next asked about an April 20, 2008, NewYork Times story that implicated the Pentagon for hand-selecting former military leaders and training them todisseminate a canned message supportive of the BushAdministration’s endeavors through their work ascorrespondents on network and cable news programs.Also, some of these individuals simultaneously sat onthe boards of major defense contractors who might ben-efit from military interventions overseas. Clarke admittedthat she was referenced in the story – indeed she wascited as an early architect of a system to recruit “keyinfluentials” to the cause – but was never contacted foran interview.

Clarke contends that there was a great deal of publicapathy about the military in a general sense at the startof the Iraq invasion, and that she made a massive effortto reach out to various constituencies as a result; forexample, retired military officials, some of whom wereserving on boards of defense contractors. Clarke recallsthat several did not support the Bush Administration’spolicies when they arrived at these meetings.

Currently, this group also includes those who haveregular roles as “talking heads” on news programs.Clarke admits that some were not completely honestwith the networks they served. Overall, she suggeststhere has been a great deal of opposition and toughcommentary from former military leaders on television.Furthermore, in a holistic sense, she remains a firm pro-ponent of as much public access to the military’sendeavors as possible.

25


Geraldo Rivera was tem-porarily removed from hisembedded assignment inAfghanistan after drawinglines in the sand to showU.S. troop positions.


26

A final question centered on whether the embeddingprocess would eventually include reporters partneringwith defense contractors. Clarke responded quickly, “Notin my lifetime.” Her explanation drew upon a parallelexperience from her time at the Pentagon. Other govern-ments across the world were interested in briefings onthe Pentagon’s process of embedding; they left feelingit would not work for them, especially when it wascouched in terms of the First Amendment. Similarly, she

suggests, corporations have some degree of resistanceto such scrutiny. Clarke ended by holding the Pentagonup as unique even among other government agencies inthe access it provides to the press.

The sources that follow were either referenced duringthe course of the discussion about the media’s roleduring wartime or offer additional insights into thesubject matter.


Barstow, David. 2008. “Behind TV Analysts,Pentagon’s Hidden Hand.” New York Times. NY: Apr.20, pg. A.1.

Crossing Wires, Crossing Swords: The Military, theMedia and Communication Technologies. 2006.McCormick Foundation Conference Series. AvailableOnline: McCormickFoundation.org/publications/mili-tarymedia2006.pdf.

Siebert, Fredrick S., Theodore Peterson, and WilburSchramm. 1956. Four Theories of the Press. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.



Lesson Plan

Topic: Wartime Reporting and First AmendmentFreedom of the Press

Critical Engagement Question: Should the rights of afree press be limited by the U.S. government duringtimes of war?

OverviewA free press plays a vital role in any democratic societyby reporting on current events and preventing the gov-ernment from operating in secrecy. The FirstAmendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the gov-ernment from abridging the rights of a free press sothat it may fulfill this role.

During times of war, however, the federal governmenthas historically limited freedom of the press, proclaim-ing a need to preserve national security, conceal tacti-cal and strategic military intelligence, or ensure troopsafety. The government’s obligation to protectAmerican lives and interests has at times been in con-flict with the freedom of press guaranteed by the FirstAmendment. This conflict is drawn into even sharperrelief in this digital age, when the press can leverageInternet and global satellite technologies to connectAmericans to the frontlines of war.

Objectives• To promote an understanding of the First

Amendment and its role in protecting freedom of thepress.

• To enable students to understand the relationshipbetween press and government.

• To provide students with an historical perspective onreporting during times of war.

• To familiarize students with the inherent tensionbetween liberty and security during times of war.

• To help students understand how technology hasshaped this debate in recent times.

StandardsNCHS: Era 3, Standard 3B; Era 10, Standards 1B, 1C,and 2DNCSS: Strands 5, 6, 8, and 10Illinois: Goal 14, Standards A, E, and F; Goal 18,Standard B

Student MaterialsGraphic organizer (Worksheet A)Internet access or informational handouts on historicaltopics

Time and Grade LevelTwo 45-minute class periods with pre- and post-activityhomework.Recommended for grades 9-12.

Warm-Up1. Write ‘liberty’ and ‘security’ on the board and ask

students to define each term. Ask them to brain-storm concepts and phrases associated with each.

2. Lead students in a discussion about the tensionbetween First Amendment freedoms (particularlyfreedom of the press) and the government’s respon-sibility to protect national security and ensure troopsafety during times of war.

3. Define terms such as habeas corpus, sedition, priorrestraint, and embedded journalist.

ActivityClass Period 1 (of 2)1. Divide students into teams of five for this jigsaw

activity. (Computer lab time or informational hand-outs will be required. Useful Web sites may includeFindlaw.com, Oyez.org and SupremeCourtUS.gov.)

2. Each member of a team is to research one of thetopics listed below, using Worksheet A to recordfindings.• Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) during the “Quasi

War”• Ex parte Merryman (1861) and President Lincoln’s

suspension of habeas corpus• Espionage Act (1917) and Sedition Act (1918)

during World War I• Schenck v. United States (1919) and the “Clear and

Present Danger” standard• The “Pentagon Papers” and New York Times Co. v.United States (1971)

3. When students have completed their research, eachmember should report his/her findings to the team.By taking notes on team members’ reports, eachstudent should have a complete graphic organizerby the conclusion of the class period.

4. As a class, discuss the important points of eachact/case, using the board to construct a timelineof events.

27


Class Period 2 (of 2)1. Review the timeline and important points of each

act/case discussed during the last class period.

2. Lead students in a discussion of contemporaryissues surrounding the freedom of the press duringtimes of war. The article “Pros and Cons ofEmbedded Journalism” at www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/embed_3-27.html mayserve as a touchstone for conversation. Studentsshould be encouraged to explore the tensionbetween freedom of the press and the need forsecrecy during times of war.

Extensions1. Have students create their own political cartoon

addressing the issue of a free press during wartime.Show examples to the students before they begin.

2. Have students write a letter to their local newspapereditor outlining their opinions on the FirstAmendment, freedom of the press, and the limits(if any) that the government should impose duringtimes of war. Each letter must be typed, at least onepage long, citing relevant sources, and should be anoutgrowth of the activities and discussions whichtook place in class.


28


Alie

nan

dSe

ditio

nA

ctEx

Part

eM

erry

man

Espi

onag

eA

ctSc

henc

kv.

U.S

.N

ewYo

rkTi

mes

Co.

v.U

.S.

Year

:

Wha

tmilita

ryco

n-fli

ctw

asth

eU.S

.en

gage

din

atth

istim

e?

Wha

tFirs

tAm

end-

men

tiss

ues

wer

eat

stak

e?Des

crib

eth

eAct

/Sup

rem

eC

ourt

case

.

Wha

twas

the

out-

com

e?

Your

Opi

nion

:W

asth

erig

htde

cisi

onm

ade?

Why

orw

hyno

t?

Directio

ns:I

nth

egr

aphi

cor

gani

zerbe

low,p

leas

eco

mpl

ete

the

colu

mn

with

your

assign

edle

gislat

ion

orSup

rem

eCou

rtca

se.

Then

,sha

reth

isin

form

atio

nw

ithyo

urfe

llow

grou

pm

embe

rs,a

syo

uw

ork

toge

ther

toco

mpl

ete

the

grap

hic

orga

nize

r.

Wa

rtim

eR

ep

ort

ing

an

dFir

st

Am

en

dm

en

tFre

ed

om

of

the

Pre

ss


29


John Samples, director of the Center forRepresentative Government at the Cato Institute,and Thomas Mann, the W. Averell Harriman chair

and senior fellow in Governance Studies at theBrookings Institution, provided the symposium partici-pants with substantially different perspectives on thecontemporary state of federal campaign finance lawsin the United States. Once more, after separate presen-tations, the two panelists entertained audience ques-tions in tag team fashion. Their debate is summarizedin the pages that follow, along with recommendationsfor additional reading and research to supplement thelesson plan on the topic.

Samples, author of The Fallacy of Campaign FinanceReform, began with a nod to the nation’s FoundingFathers—appropriately James Madison. He calledMadison the most “characteristically” American thinkerwhose deepest concern was individual liberty, whichSamples considers the starting point for any discussionof campaign finance laws.

For theoretical guidance, he referenced DouglassNorth’s classification of the world into two categories:the natural state of order and open access order. Alongthese lines, most of society qualifies as residing in anatural state of limited access. What marks the distinc-tion between the natural and open access state issocietal competition; under this distinction, the UnitedStates fits into the open access order. Transitioning intothe world of campaign finance regulations, Samplescontends that there is no “obvious” connectionbetween the spending of personal money and electionsin an open access order. He therefore finds JusticeJohn Paul Stevens’ argument that money does notequate to speech problematic.

Samples proceeds to link the two, pondering the ques-tion: How is money connected to speech and to whatextent can it be regulated? Contrary to the views ofJustice Stevens, a current majority on the U.S. SupremeCourt holds that money is tied to speech and it may,indeed, affect its exercise. Samples proceeded further,suggesting that money acts as speech by conveyinginformation to others, specifically about candidates forpublic office. He argues that individual contributorsspeak to what the candidates may do in office and theissue positions they will embrace.

Candidates need to raise money in order to spend iton their political campaigns, and regulations on suchfundraising affect every phase of this equation. Samplessuggests that to speak of campaign finance reform is toinvoke improper terminology, for it assumes that regula-

tion of political fundraising is necessary.He then listed several of the prohibited sources of

campaign funding for federal elections, including foreignnationals and corporations, which cannot make directcontributions. Thus, money raised within the existingcampaign finance system comes from individuals viadefined limits.

In the past, campaign finance laws also placed restric-tions on candidate spending, including limits aboutmoney allocated to broadcasting.

Moreover, a slew of regulations affect the disclosure offunding sources, but most of the existing rules focus ondonation limits. The landmark case that establishedthese boundaries in the wake of post-Watergate reformswas Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976. Current limita-tions affect how much individuals can give to a singlecandidate in a specified election cycle, thus affectingtheir level of financial influence in such campaigns.According to Samples, these limits have a tremendousimpact on fundraising, forcing candidates to rely upon amyriad of sources to raise the immense sums necessaryto compete in the contemporary political landscape.

Samples referenced Senator Eugene McCarthy’s longshot bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in1968 as an example of the pre-Watergate campaignfinance regime, where the dark horse finished a surpris-ing second to incumbent President Lyndon Johnson inthe New Hampshire Primary. McCarthy’s campaign wasbankrolled primarily by a handful of wealthy donors.

According to Samples, modern regulations, by com-parison, actually raise the price of political involvementgiven the time that must be devoted to raising fundsfrom a sea of sources. This is ironic because these sameregulations actually reduce the amount of spendingallowed in campaigns.

The contribution limits for candidates for federal officehave been in place since 1974, but were not indexed toinflation until 2002 with the passage of the BipartisanCampaign Reform Act, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold, the last names of its two primary Senate spon-sors, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold(D-WI). As a result, the real value of these contributionlimits eroded with the passage of time.

Since the most recent reforms, Samples sees a “rapidchange” in “hard money” fundraising for individual can-didates. Hard money refers to personal contributions toindividual candidates. McCain-Feingold made severerestrictions on “soft money” contributions to political par-ties; “soft money” contributions are funds that cannot bespent advocating the election of an individual candidate,

Chapter 4:Free Speech and Campaign Finance Reform

30


but may be used to attack his or her opponent.McCain-Feingold also placed limits on so-called “issue

ads” aired close to an election that reference a candi-date for federal office. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Courtfound this blanket provision in violation of the FirstAmendment’s freedom of speech in the case FederalElection Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

Most recently, the Court considered the Millionaire’sAmendment attached to McCain-Feingold in Davis v.Federal Election Commission. It included a progressiveloosening of fundraising requirements for federal candi-dates who face wealthy, self-funded opponents, raisingindividual contribution ceilings under the premise of lev-eling the proverbial playing field. In a June 2008 opinion,a majority on the Court concluded that the Millionaire’sAmendment ran aground on First Amendment princi-ples. The prevailing premise since Buckley v. Valeowas that contribution limits are permissible to reducecorruption or public perception of it. Because theMillionaire’s Amendment does not address this concern,but merely seeks to level the playing field, the Courtdealt yet another blow to McCain-Feingold.

Based on his survey of our recent forays into cam-paign finance reform, Samples concludes that theserestrictions infringe upon free speech. To him, theremaining question is whether or not this burden on theFirst Amendment is justified. According to Samples, thecurrent majority on the Supreme Court begins with thepremise of liberty as it evaluates campaign finance laws.The alternative approach used by those in the minority isto begin with an objective of equality where democracy

is the embodiment of one person, one vote. In Davis,the Court determined that individual candidates whowant to spend more on their campaigns need not justifythemselves. In doing so, Samples sees the majorityshifting away from the premise of equality, which placesthe burden of integrity on the individual donor or self-funded candidate.

If campaign finance restrictions are indeed an in-fringement upon personal liberty, specifically freedomof speech, how are these “intrusions” then justified?Samples returned to the notion of preventing the appear-ance of corruption. However, he reveals that there is nostrong finding of any relationship between campaigncontributions and roll-call votes. He admits that this maynot be the only area of legislative influence for politicaldonors, but argues that the presumption of libertyembedded in American institutions and political culturerequires deeper evidence of corruption in order to main-tain free speech restrictions.

Samples also allowed that there is an educationalaspect to campaign finance laws, specifically disclosurerequirements. Sources of campaign funds may informvoters of who an individual candidate has allegiancesto and how, if elected, he or she may vote on specificissues.

Samples concluded with a reference to the limitedaccess order he described at the outset of his presen-tation, where both major political parties attempt toharm one another via the manipulation of campaignfinance laws. Moreover, incumbents, he contends, writethese laws to increase the safety of their respective


31

Senators John McCain(R-AZ) and Russ Feingold(D-WI) were co-sponsors ofthe Bi-partisan CampaignReform Act of 2002.


Free Speech and Campaign Finance Reform

seats, further heightening their re-election prospects.Samples confessed that campaign finance restrictions

are popular with the public, but tempered this enthusi-asm with data suggesting that support for freedom ofspeech in concrete situations does not garner strongmajority sentiment. Campaign contributions, he charges,are but one example where regulations are aimed atgroups – the wealthy, corporations and labor unions –who are widely disliked by national majorities.

Samples then handed over the podium to his counter-part on the subject, Thomas Mann, who began bylamenting the degree to which the polarized debate overcampaign finance laws are emblematic of our nationalpolitical atmosphere as a whole. He contends thatideology is the “bane” of governance and politics, whereboth conservatives and liberals on either end of thespectrum cling to “utopian views.” Where the left seeksto banish private money in its entirety from the politicalscene – offering direct funding and individual vouchersas substitutes – the right wants to deregulate the systemto allow the political marketplace to manage the role ofmoney in politics.

Mann was an advocate of a “soft money” ban like thatincluded in McCain-Feingold, but has since exploredother campaign finance-related topics. More than any-thing, he is tired of the “stale” debate, yet does seesigns of progress. Regardless of where one stands onthe issue, Mann predicts further erosions of campaignfinance regulations given the current composition of theSupreme Court.

Mann addressed Samples’ freedom of speech con-cerns about campaign finance restrictions with the con-tention that the right to speak diminishes in significancewithout the money to do so. He contends that the man-ner by which campaign cash is raised and spent canundermine the legitimacy of politics. Mann recognizes an“underlying tension” between economic inequality andpolitical equality, where the former can exasperate thelatter. However, “necessary” restrictions in order to attainpolitical equality may conflict with the bedrock protec-tions of the First Amendment.

Mann maintains that the tools available to promotepolitical equality through campaign finance regulationsare universal across the world. They include regulationof campaign activities, limits on fundraising and/orspending, public financing of some aspects or all partsof the campaign process, and disclosure requirementsfor political contributions.

He allows that the “appearance of corruption stan-dard” first articulated in Buckley has proven nothing

more than a “failure.” Taken together, the tools listedabove are “blunt,” according to Mann, and reformersinevitably end up disappointed. At the same time, hesuggests, proponents of reform conclude that deregula-tion is not the answer. Among the concerns of an unreg-ulated political marketplace are outright bribery, conflictsof interest and the money “chase” itself.

Reformers are thus left with a conundrum: there are nopanaceas. Democracies are left to find ways to managethe political marketplace without damaging the very insti-tutions that make campaigns possible. Freedom ofspeech is one of these vital institutions, and it is arguablythreatened by campaign finance regulations.

Mann proceeded to trace campaign finance regula-tions across American history. He lampooned the ten-dency across time to pass laws, but never enforce them.One such foray was the Tillman Act of 1907, which pro-hibited campaign contributions from corporations andnational banks to federal campaigns. The most substan-tive reforms were embodied in the Federal Election LawCampaign Act, which provided for disclosure require-ments, along with limits on fundraising and even spend-ing on media. The latter provision was struck down inthe Buckley case. According to Mann, amendmentsthree years later in the wake of Watergate created a reg-ulatory regime with real enforcement powers, namely inthe form of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

In balance, Mann feels that some of the regulationsworked “pretty well,” yet they were “eroded” over time,particularly by former President Bill Clinton and his advis-er Dick Morris in the mid-1990s. Also to blame, Manncontends, was the use of money at state level to air“issue ads.” When challenged, the FEC “punted,” andthus we entered the “world of soft money.

Mann turned next to McCain-Feingold, which he sug-gested has modest objectives, and basically restored thestatus quo achieved during the post-Watergate era. Itdid, however, place “teeth” in bans on corporate andunion-funded issue ads.

He also confronted critics of McCain-Feingold, mostprominent of them columnist George Will. He faults Willfor claiming that recent reforms infringe upon freedom ofspeech, yet failing to provide concrete examples of anysuch violations.

Currently, Mann fears that the contemporary campaignfinance regime is on the brink of collapse. Major candi-dates began casting aside the federal matching moniesduring primary season beginning with George W. Bushin 2000. Most recently, the general election funding sys-tem is increasingly endangered, too, as presumptive

32


Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)conducted a “bait and switch,” first committing to publicfunding, and then making an unprecedented move toraise money independently and spend without restric-tions. His opponent, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), didaccept public funding for the general election phase ofthe campaign.

Despite a fractured regime, Mann highlighted a num-ber of signs for inspiration relative to campaign financingin United States politics. He considers the large sums ofmoney raised throughout the 2008 cycle a “sign ofstrength.” Furthermore, McCain-Feingold’s curb on softmoney has not led to new channels for this relativelyunregulated money to flow. Also, Mann finds the “surge”in small donors encouraging. For example, during the2008 primary season, Senator Obama raised roughlyhalf of his record-setting campaign coffers from contribu-tions of $250 or less.

Mann contends that money did not play a decisive rolein either party’s nomination process. McCain was vastlyoutspent by rival Mitt Romney, and although Obamaoutraised his primary challenger Senator Hillary Clinton(D-NY), his lavish spending in select states did notalways equal victory. One needs to look no further thanthe results of the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries forevidence of this phenomenon.

Finally, Mann reports that “outside groups” have beendiscouraged by the Obama camp from inserting them-selves in this election, and there is a general lack ofenthusiasm for such independent expenditures on theright. The political parties themselves, however, arespending a great deal independently.

He concludes that free speech is alive and well inthe post-McCain-Feingold world. Mann considers theWisconsin Right to Life Supreme Court case to be“lame,” as the search to find a situation where an inde-pendent group was affected by the issue ad banwas difficult. He noted that campaigns are changingdramatically, and, as a result, the efficacy of campaignfinance limits is eroding. Campaign finance regulationas a whole, Mann argues, is due for reconsideration,especially in light of new Digital Age realities. Heencourages us to allow new information to change ourminds as we explore practical ways of updating theregulatory regime.

Their individual presentations complete, Mann andSamples opened the floor to questions from symposiumparticipants. The first question pondered whether thecurrent $2,300 per person limit on individual contribu-tions to federal candidates in a single election, which

requires candidates to solicit funds from a bevy ofsources, produces better fundraisers than political lead-ers. Mann responded by comparing Senator Obamain 2008 with Senator McCarthy in 1968. While Obamaraised roughly $1.7 million from small donations,McCarthy was funded by a few millionaires. Mann con-tends that McCarthy would have been a “dreadful” presi-dent, and that Obama is a much better candidate.

Samples failed to see a connection between the twocandidates. He referenced McCarthy earlier only to holdhim up as an example of what the system looked likeprior to the restraints imposed after 1971. He considersthe restraints placed on the ability to raise money thecentral issue of concern.

A second participant wondered whether any of theissues raised over the course of the panel discussionwere valid in light of the changes precipitated by theInternet. Samples suggested that campaign finance reg-ulations are rooted in the progressive tradition ofAmerican political thought; “Madisonian liberals” likehimself have a healthy distrust of such measures.Moving forward, however, it may be difficult for any levelof government to regulate campaign finance, a realmSamples equates with political speech, given the manydifferent available outlets.

Mann feels that we are not there yet. The impact of theInternet is just now beginning to penetrate the system,he suggests. Mann believes that, increasingly, cam-paigning will embrace the Internet as the preferred modeof communicating with voters, thus lowering costs. Hedoes not see value in large political contributions to can-didates, but finds the solicitation of small donationshealthy for our democracy.

The next question asked was: How do any of thesecampaign finance measures promote democracy?Mann repeated his contention that money did not playa decisive role in the 2008 primary process, so democ-racy, in his mind, stands on firm ground. Samplesraised the issue of whether citizens are more or lessinformed as a result of campaign finance regulations.He cited a study by political scientist John Coleman,who found that higher levels of campaign spendingexpand the knowledge base of potential voters. Theseeffects are distributed across the economic spectrum,and those with the lowest overall levels of politicalknowledge gained the most.

The final question was a particularly appropriate giventhe theme of the symposium. A participant asked: Whatproblems does the Digital Age present to political cam-paigns? Samples weighed in first, arguing that the dis-


33



closure system works well given the instantaneous flowof information, where the burden of proof in terms offunding sources is placed on the candidate. He alsobelieves that political speech is strengthened by the emer-gence of the Internet given its democratizing effects.Nowadays, Samples contends that it is less plausiblefor the wealthy to dominate political discourse.

Mann is also an optimist in this respect, but findsthe fact that the Internet tends to empower those with

the motivation to be interested in politics and publicinformation problematic. Despite the openness of thedigital domain, Mann feels there remain too manybarriers to political participation in the contemporarypolitical environment.

The sources that follow were either referenceddirectly by the two speakers in the course of the paneldiscussion or provide additional information aboutcampaign finance regulation at the federal level in the

34

“Buckley v. Valeo.” Oyez: U.S. Supreme Court Media.Available Online: Oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_75_436.

Campaign Finance Institute: A non-partisan, non-profitinstitute, affiliated with The George WashingtonUniversity, that conducts objective research and edu-cation, empanels task forces and makes recommen-dations for policy change in the field of campaignfinance. Available Online: Cfinst.org.

Civic Disengagement in Our Democracy. 2008.McCormick Foundation Conference Series. AvailableOnline:McCormickFoundation.org/publications/civicdisen-gagement.pdf.

Coleman, John. 2001. “The Distribution of CampaignSpending Benefits across Groups.” The Journal ofPolitics, Vol. 63, No. 3 (Aug.), Pp. 916-934. AvailableOnline:Polisci.Wisc.edu/coleman/colemanjop2001.pdf.

“Davis v. Federal Election Commission.” LegalInformation Institute: Supreme Court Collection.Cornell University Law School. Available Online:Law.Cornell.edu/supct/html/07-320.ZS.html.

Federal Election Commission. Available Online:FEC.gov.

“Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right toLife.” Oyez: U.S. Supreme Court Media. AvailableOnline: Oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_969.

Mann, Thomas E. 2007. “Campaign Finance: IsUnregulated Spending the Most Effective Way toEnsure Citizens Have the Power to Speak to TheirGovernment?” Brookings Institution. Available Online:Brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0713_campaignfi-nance_mann.aspx.

North, Douglass C. 2007. “A Conceptual Frameworkfor Interpreting Human History.” Available Online:Cniss.wustl.edu/publications/2007north.pdf.

OpenSecrets.org. Center for Responsive Politics.Available Online: OpenSecrets.org.

Samples, John. 2006. The Fallacy of CampaignFinance Reform. Chicago: The University of ChicagoPress.



Topic: Free Speech and Campaign Finance Reform

Critical Engagement Question: Do proposed cam-paign finance reforms promote or hinder free speech inthe political arena?

OverviewSince the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971(FECA), Congress has pressed for legislation to limitthe financial contributions individuals can make topolitical campaigns in order to lessen the influence ofmoney in politics. Although the Supreme Court struckdown major provisions of this act construed as uncon-stitutional restrictions on free expression and associa-tion, several amendments to FECA over the past thirtyyears have bolstered its main tenets. For example, theBipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also knownas McCain-Feingold) addressed the issue of “softmoney” and banned the broadcast of “issue ads”within a certain time period before an election.

Despite such amendments, pertinent questions stillremain. Chief among them is: Are political contribu-tions a form of free speech that merit protection underthe First Amendment? And, if so, is there adequate jus-tification to limit what individuals, groups, and organi-zations may give in support of a political candidate orissue?

Objectives• To familiarize students with key terms and concepts

associated with campaign finance reform.• To aid students in understanding the connection

between free speech and campaign financing.• To enable students to identify both the potential posi-

tive and negative impacts of reform efforts.• To assist students in evaluating arguments for and

against campaign finance reform.

StandardsNCHS: Era 10, Standard 2D, 2ENCSS: Strands 5, 6, and 10Illinois: Goal 14, Standard C, D, and F; Goal 18,Standard B

Student MaterialsInternet accessWorksheets A and B

Time and Grade LevelTwo 45-minute class periods with pre- and post-activities.Recommended for grades 9–12.

Warm-Up1. Define the following terms: interest group, political

action committee, soft/hard money, public financing,issue ad. Discuss the significance of these terms asthey relate to political campaigns.

2. Distribute brief summaries of Buckley v. Valeo (1976)and Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Rightto Life, Inc. (2007). Have students review each sum-mary in groups of two or three. Once finished, con-duct a discussion of the case backgrounds andmain arguments.

Activity1. Instruct students to complete Worksheet A in pairs,

using the Web resources listed below and onWorksheet A. Once completed, review each termwith the class so as to familiarize everyone with theirimportance.- Center for Responsive Politics: OpenSecrets.org- Federal Election Commission: FEC.gov- A Money in Politics Glossary:CampaignFinanceSite.org/structure/terms.html

- Oyez: U.S. Supreme Court Media: Oyez.org/cases

2. As a class, review the Web site OpenSecrets.org,which tracks individual contributions to congression-al and presidential campaigns, as well as contribu-tions made by political action committees andprivate industries. Students should become familiarwith how to navigate the site, especially the“Politicians and Elections” and “Influence andLobbying” tabs. This can be accomplished througha teacher-guided exploration of the site, or by havingstudents work in pairs.

3. In the computer lab, distribute Worksheet B toeach pair of students. Students are to look up aRepresentative or Senator from their state andcomplete the worksheet by finding the informationon the Web site.

Lesson Plan

35


HomeworkHave each pair of students write a 1-page report on theelected official they researched. This report should be abrief summary of (1) the contributions made to this politi-cian by individuals, political action committees and pri-vate industries and (2) how much he/she spent duringthe last campaign. Other relevant discussion points maybe added by the teacher, such as the First Amendmentright of interest groups to petition the government forredress of grievances, a practice that often assumes themore pejorative term of “lobbying.” Students should beprepared to share their findings with the class.

Extensions1. Have students choose a 527 group on which they

will do an in-depth study. Information on various527 groups can be found at OpenSecrets.org/527s,PublicIntegrity.org/527 and FEC.gov. This study canbe in the form of a report or poster.

2. Watch and discuss the documentary Moyers onAmerica: Capitol Crimes. This video can beaccessed online at PBS.org/moyers/ moyerson-america/capitol. This documentary addressescampaign financing and the influence of money inpolitics, as well as the Jack Abramoff scandal andits fallout.


36


First Amendment:

Interest Groups:

Incumbency:

Public Financing:

Soft and Hard Money:

527 Groups:

Political Action Committee (PAC):

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA, 1971):

Federal Election Commission (FEC):

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold, 2002):

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007):

Campaign Finance Reform Timeline

1965 2008

Student Worksheet A Name:

Directions: Write the definition for each term below. Once completed, fill in the timeline at the bottom of theworksheet with all important events and dates discussed in class. Please use the following Web sites as sourcesfor information.

Center for Responsive Politics: OpenSecrets.orgFederal Election Commission: FEC.govA Money in Politics Glossary: CampaignFinanceSite.org/structure/terms.htmlOyez: U.S. Supreme Court Media: Oyez.org/cases

Campaign Finance Reform: Key Concepts and Definitions

37


Elected official’s name: Year of most recent election:

Total amount raised: Amount contributed by political action committees (PACs):

Money contributed by individual candidate: Did the elected official have any money left after the campaignended? If so, how much?

In your opinion, should politicians be allowed to spend less than they raise in a given election cycle, or should they be required tospend every dollar that was given to them for the purpose of their campaign? Explain your answer.

Who was the top contributor, and how much did they give? List the top five industries that contributed to this electedofficial’s campaign:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

For the most recent campaign financing cycle, find the list of PACs that contributed. Choose one sector and fill in the following data:

Name of sector (ex. health, labor, education): Total amount given:

Click on the sector you chose and list the top-giving area within this sector:

Look at the PAC Contribution Breakdown for the most recent cycle. List the top three groups and their percentage of overallcontributions:

On the left-hand column, click on “Personal Financial Disclosure,” and then type the elected official’s name in the search boxon the right.

List their net worth and their ranking among all members:

Look at the bar graph on the right. How does this elected official’s financial assets compare with the average?

Student Worksheet B Name:

Following the Money: A Worksheet for OpenSecrets.org

Directions: Select a Congressperson or Senator from your state. Complete this worksheet for this elected official,using information found on the Web site OpenSecrets.org.

38


Concluding Questions:

Should private companies, industries, and organizations be allowed to give as much money as they wish to a certain candidate?Why or why not?

Do you believe these companies, industries, and organizations hope to receive political favors in return for the financial contribu-tions? If so, what form might they take?

Do limitations on campaign contributions from individuals who represent certain companies, industries, and organization infringeupon their First Amendment freedom of speech? Explain.


39


Appendix: Speakers

Victoria Clarke, senior advisor, Communications andGovernment Affairs, Comcast Corporation, is widelyrespected as one of the nation’s most innovative com-munication strategists. She served most recently asAssistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. In thepast, she served as the press secretary for formerPresident Bush’s 1992 re-election campaign, an advi-sor to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and as Assistant U.S.Trade Representative during former President Bush’sAdministration. Clarke has also advised many of thenation’s best known executives, served as president ofBozell Eskew and vice president of the National Cable& Telecommunications Association.

Todd Gaziano, director, Center for Legal and JudicialStudies, Heritage Foundation, focuses on legal andjudicial reform, as well as constitutional issues thataddress equal treatment under the law. Before joiningthe Heritage Foundation, Gaziano was chief counsel tothe House Subcommittee on National EconomicGrowth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs,where he worked on government-wide regulatoryreform legislation for Chairman David McIntosh. Heserved in the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S.Justice Department and as a judicial law clerk to theHonorable Edith H. Jones, U.S. Judge for the FifthCircuit Court of Appeals.

Jane Hall, associate professor, School ofCommunication, American University, is dedicated tounderstanding the relationship between young people,politics and media. In the fall of 2007, she began ayear-long collaboration with her students andWashingtonPost.com that focused on young people’sinvolvement with and interests surrounding the 2008presidential election. Before she joined AmericanUniversity, she spent nine years as a media reporter forthe Los Angeles Times New York bureau. She hasbeen a regular contributor to Harvard InternationalJournal of Press and Columbia Journalism Review onmedia and political topics. She regularly moderates theAmerican Forum, a program series that addressesissues important to young people. Hall is also a weeklyanalyst on Fox News and has appeared on TheNewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Charlie Rose and CNNnewscasts.

Brian Lamb, CEO, C-SPAN Networks, has been at thehelm of the public affairs channel since its launch in1979. He has also been a regular on-air presence atC-SPAN since the network’s earliest days. Over theyears, he has interviewed Presidents Nixon, Ford,Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton andGeorge W. Bush, as well as world leaders such asMargaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev. Currently,Brian hosts Q and A, an hour-long interview programon Sunday evening. Previously, he helped launchC-SPAN Networks and served in the Navy. His tourincluded the U.S.S. Thuban, White House duty duringthe Johnson administration and a stint in the Pentagonpublic affairs office during the Vietnam War. Later, heserved as a Senate press secretary and worked for theWhite House Office of Telecommunications Policy at atime when a national strategy for communicationssatellites was under development.

Thomas Mann, W. Averell Harriman chair and seniorfellow in Governance Studies, the Brookings Institution,is currently working on projects dealing with redistrict-ing, election reform, campaign finance and congres-sional reform. Recently, he published a book entitledThe Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing Americaand How to Get It Back on Track. His experienceincludes serving as director of Governmental Studies atthe Brookings Institution, executive director of theAmerican Political Science Association and consultantto IBM and the Public Broadcasting Service. He alsotaught at Princeton University, Johns HopkinsUniversity, Georgetown University, University of Virginiaand American University.

Steve Rendall, senior analyst, Fairness and Accuracyin Reporting (FAIR), is currently the co-host ofCounterSpin, FAIR’s national radio show. His work hasreceived awards from Project Censored and he haswon the praise of noted journalists such as Les Payne,Molly Ivins and Garry Wills. He is co-author of The WayThings Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error. Rendallhas appeared on dozens of national television andradio shows, including appearances on CNN, C-SPAN,CNBC, MTV and Fox Morning News. In the past, hehas contributed stories to the International HeraldTribune from France, Spain and North Africa, workedas a freelance writer in San Francisco and as anarchivist collecting historical material on the SpanishCivil War and the volunteers who fought in it.

40


John Samples, director, Center for RepresentativeGovernment, Cato Institute, writes extensively on thepolitical institutions of the U.S. His book, The Fallacy ofCampaign Finance Reform, was published by theUniversity of Chicago Press in the fall of 2006. Samplesco-directed The Marketplace of Democracy, theBrookings-Cato project on the decline of electoralcompetition. He also teaches courses at JohnsHopkins University on public opinion and money inpolitics. Samples previously served as director of theGeorgetown University Press and vice president of TheTwentieth Century Fund.

Michael Scherer, correspondent, TIME Magazine’sWashington bureau, is currently covering the 2008presidential campaign. He has worked on severalnational assignments for Mother Jones magazine andSalon.com. Previously, he served as an assistant editorat the Columbia Journalism Review, an editorial fellowat Mother Jones and an education reporter for theDaily Hampshire Gazette (Northampton, MA).

Pete Williams, an NBC News correspondent based inWashington, D.C., has been covering the JusticeDepartment and the U.S. Supreme Court since March1993. Williams was also a key reporter on the Microsoftanti-trust trial and Judge Jackson’s decision. Prior tojoining NBC, Williams served as a press official onCapitol Hill for many years. In 1986, he joined theWashington, D.C. staff of then-Congressman DickCheney as his press secretary and legislative assistant.In 1989, when Cheney was named Assistant Secretaryof Defense, Williams was appointed assistant Secretaryof Defense for Public Affairs. While in that position,Williams was named Government Communicator of theYear by the National Association of GovernmentCommunicators.


41


Appendix: Participants

James Madison MemorialFellowship Foundation Staff:Norma ClaytorSpecial Assistant and OfficeManager

Lewis LarsenVice President and Director ofPrograms

Jenny NicholasSummer Institute Coordinator

Sheila OsbourneAcademic Assistant

Elizabeth RayFinancial Analyst

Steve WeissDirector of Administration andFinance

Admiral Paul A. Yost, Jr.President

McCormick Freedom Museum Staff:David AndersonExecutive Director

Courtney BrouwerStudent and Teacher ProgramsManager

Shawn HealyResident Scholar, 01 (WI)

Megan LawsonAdministrative Assistant

Nathan RichieDirector of Programs and Exhibits

Symposium Participants:Marion Anderson, 94 (IL)Dixon High SchoolDixon, IL

Jeffery Appelhans 04 (CO)William J. Palmer High SchoolColorado Springs, CO

Emily Bagley 07 (NC)Wake Forest UniversityWinston-Salem, NC

Elizabeth Bailey 07 (IN)Hamilton Southeastern High SchoolFishers, IN

Xian BarrettPercy L. Julian High SchoolChicago, IL

Michael Bell 01 (TX)Southwest High SchoolSan Antonio, TX

Jennifer Biser 08 (NC)University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill

Marianne BoeResurrection High SchoolChicago, IL

Brian Bohnert 07 (CO)Ralston Valley High SchoolArvada, CO

Erica Bray-Parker 08 (IL)Glenbard North High SchoolCarol Stream, IL

Kevin Brewer 03 (TN)Big Sandy High SchoolBig Sandy, TN

John BrosnahanRichard Ira Jones Middle SchoolPlainfield, IL

Mary Browning-Huntington 06 (TN)Hunters Lane High SchoolNashville, TN

Rachael Button-Koenigsfeld 07(NM)Del Norte High SchoolAlbuquerque, NM

Russell Cannon 06 (MS)University of ChicagoChicago, IL

Lisa Carotenuto 00 (AZ)Sabino High SchoolTucson, AZ

Theodora Chang 07 (CA)Stanford UniversityPalo Alto, CA

Clyde Chapman 95 (OH)Bethany SchoolCincinnatti, OH

Brian Cleveland 06 (IA)Newton High SchoolNewton, IA

Joseph Cofield 07 (FL)Bonita Springs Middle SchoolBonita Springs, FL

Barnaby Cook 04 (SD)Chester Area SchoolChester, SD

Christina Cote 07 (MT)Gardiner Public SchoolGardiner, MT

Karen Cox 08 (NM)Atrisco Heritage Academy HighSchoolAlbuquerque, NM

Ray Curtis 94 (MT)Big Sky High SchoolMissoula, MT

42


Robert Curtis 07 (OH)Ashland UniversityStrongsville, OH

Donald Davis 96 (AL)Corliss High SchoolChicago, IL

Donald De Angelo 07 (CA)Cathedral Catholic High SchoolSan Diego, CA

Stephanie Dean 00 (NC)Leesville High SchoolRaleigh, NC

Norma DeMund 95 (VI)St. Croix Dept. of EducationChristianstead, St. Croix, VI

Cynda Eads 95 (GA)South Gwinnett High SchoolSnelville, GA

Ryan Ervin 04 (IL)Newton Community High SchoolNewton, IL

Molly Feeney 08 (ME)University of MaineHope, ME

Barbara Finch 92 (TX)Duchesne Academy of theSacred HeartHouston, TX

Lisa Formisano-WilsonRosario Castellanos SchoolChicago, IL

Valerie Frezza 07 (RI)North Smithfield Jr-Sr High SchoolNorth Smithfield, RI

Meaghan Gibson 07 (WY)Laramie High SchoolLaramie, WY

Timothy Greene 93 (PA)Jersey Shore Area Senior HighSchoolJersey Shore, PA

Claire Griffin 92 (HI)Bill of Rights InstituteArlington, VA

Salman Hamid 07 (CT)Hamden High SchoolHamden, CT

Robert Hight 02 (NC)Terry Sanford Senior High SchoolFayetteville, NC

Jeffrey Hinton 07 (NV)Sierra Vista High SchoolLas Vegas, NV

Jerome HoynesGlenbrook North High SchoolNorthbrook, IL

Heather Hubbel 07 (SC)University of South DakotaVermillion, SD

Glenna Humphreys 95 (FL)South Plantation High SchoolPlantation, FL

Emma Humphries 04 (FL)Middleburg High SchoolMiddleburg, FL

Christina Imholt 04 (DC)Caesar Chavez Public CharterSchoolWashington, D.C.

Erik Iverson 06 (SD)Rapid City AcademyRapid City, SD

Jenicee Jacobson 07 (UT)Riverton High SchoolRiverton, Utah

Rebecca Johnson 07 (MA)Malden High SchoolMalden, MA

Christopher Jones 07 (DE)Middletown High SchoolMiddletown, DE

Emily Juckett 07 (GA)Walton High SchoolMarietta, GA

Holly Kartchner 07 (ID)Blackfoot High SchoolBlackfoot, ID

Virginia Ann Kennedy 97 (OK)Southeast High SchoolOklahoma City, OK

Tina Kim 06 (CA)Civitas School of LeadershipLos Angeles, CA

Toby Kirk 06 (MI)Coldwater High SchoolColdwater, MI

Deborah Kurtz 06 (OH)Temple Christian SchoolMansfield, OH

Rebecca Lacquey 07 (TX)Katy High SchoolKaty, TX

Daniel Lamb 02 (WI)Plymouth High SchoolPlymouth, WI

Ricardo Larios 06 (OR)Waldo Middle SchoolSalem, OR


43


Participants

Hayley LotspeichWheaton North High SchoolWheaton, IL

Leah MacKenzie 07 (WA)Three Rivers Christian SchoolKelso, WA

Jennifer Mitnick 02 (PA)Seneca Valley Middle SchoolHarmony, PA

Laurie Morris 94 (AZ)Leupp High SchoolWinslow, AZ

Jenny Nicholas 00 (UT)West High SchoolSalt Lake City, UT

Erin Nooy 07 (OR)McMinnville High SchoolMcMinnville, OR

Denise North 07 (MN)Wrenshall High SchoolWrenshall, MN

Ron ObermanWells Community AcademyChicago, IL

Lynne O’Hara 03 (PA)Central Bucks High School-WestDoylestown, PA

Thomas O’Hare 00 (SC)Wilson HallSumter, SC

Thomas Parker 95 (MI)Holland West Middle SchoolHolland, MI

Julie Payne 04 (AL)Auburn High SchoolAuburn, AL

Sarah Poole 07 (MD)Arundel High SchoolGambrills, MD

Wade Price 00 (LA)Alfred Bonnabel High SchoolKenner, LA

Deborah Puckett 07 (TN)Madison Academic Magnet HighSchoolJackson, TN

Patricia Radigan 95 (FL)Thomas Dale High SchoolChester, VA

Blanca Ramirez 07 (WI)Warren Township High SchoolGurnee, IL

Pat Ramsy 95 (AK)University of Central ArkansasConway, AK

Tareeq RasheedStephan K. Hayt Elementary SchoolChicago, IL

David Reader 07 (NJ)Camden Catholic High SchoolCherry Hill, NJ

Randall Reed 07 (AL)University of South AlabamaMobile, AL

Sandra Reed 07 (TX)Faith West AcademyKaty, TX

Jennifer Reidel 02 (WA)Lynden High SchoolLynden, WA

Jennifer Reiter 07 (OK)Carver Middle SchoolTulsa, OK

Aimel Rios Wong (Cuban Fellow)Washington, D.C.

Katie Robison 00 (VA)Falls Church, VA

Matthew Roy 07 (PA)Conestoga High SchoolBerwyn, PA

Cathy Saks 02 (OR)David Douglas High SchoolPortland, OR

Jeanne Salvado 96 (FL)Montgomery County Public SchoolDistrictGermantown, MD

Janeal Schmidt 07 (KS)Kansas State UniversityManhattan, KS

Donna Sharer 06 (PA)Girard Academic Music ProgramPhiladelphia, PA

Pankaj SharmaNiles North High SchoolSkokie, IL

Leslie Skinner 92 (SC)South Carolina State Dept. ofEducationColumbia, SC

Colleen Smith 06 (KY)Tates Creek High SchoolLexington, KY

Kelly Smith 07 (PA)Universal Institute Charter SchoolPhiladelphia, PA

Lisa Smith 05 (MO)Saeger Middle SchoolSt. Charles, MO

44


Patrick Smith 05 (KY)Franklin County High SchoolFrankfort, KY

Tom SmithElk Grove High SchoolElk Grove Village, IL

Sharon SmogorCarmel Catholic High SchoolMundelein, IL

Jennifer Spensieri 06 (AZ)Northern Arizona UniversityFlagstaff, AZ

William Stevens 06 (DC)The SEED Public Charter SchoolWashington, D.C.

Jessie StewartGolder College PrepChicago, IL

Kristi Stricker 99 (IL)Percy L. Julian High SchoolChicago, IL

Pio Tavai 05 (American Samoa)Leone High SchoolPago Pago, American Samoa

Patricia Taylor 00 (NY)Harborfields High SchoolGreenlawn, NY

Kathrine Terry 98 (IN)Lindbloom AcademyChicago, IL

Hardy Thames 08 (TN)Central High SchoolMemphis, TN

Matthew Turner 07 (NY)Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake HighSchoolBurnt Hills, NY

Pat Usher 07 (IL)Carl Sandburg High SchoolOrland Park, IL

Marelys Valencia (Cuban Fellow)Glendale, AZ

Robyn Verbois 07 (LA)Ashland UniversityAshland, OH

Robert Walters 07 (MS)Lanier High SchoolJackson, MS

Cheryl Ward 94 (MO)Chatillon-De Menil Mansion HouseFoundationSt. Louis, MO

Kathryn Wendling 04 (MN)Burnsville Senior High SchoolBurnsville, MN

Curtis White 04 (KS)Indian Woods Middle SchoolOverland Park, KS

David Wolfford 99 (KY)Mariemont High schoolCincinnati, OH

Jeremy Yenger 07 (IA)Johnston High SchoolJohnston, IA

Colby Young 07 (NH)Boston UniversityBoston, MA

Freedom of Speech and the Press in the Information AgeFreedom of Speech and the Press in the Information Age

45


McCormick Foundation Conference SeriesCall for 2010 Conference Proposals

McCormick Foundation constantly seeks to build onthe quality and tradition of our Conference Series byaddressing a range of timely and challenging issues.

We welcome submissions from academic institutions,policy experts, and public, nonprofit and private sectorprofessionals from all fields.

For details on the 2010 call for proposal deadlineor to print a copy of this report, visitwww.McCormickFoundation.org.

46


Notes

56535_Conference_u2:Layout 1 9/10/08 7:50 PM Page IBC1

Notes

56535_Conference_u2:Layout 1 9/10/08 7:50 PM Page IBC2

Freedom of Speech and the Press in the Information Age · Barack Obama is elected with a Democratic...

Documents

Transcript of Freedom of Speech and the Press in the Information Age · Barack Obama is elected with a Democratic...