The House has proposed a bill to lift the ban on photos of the coffins of military dead returning from Iraq. I think it's about time. And you?
j.linx will crank up in earnest once the school year starts, providing updates for current students, connections to former ones, links to useful sites, as well as subjects for lively debate for anyone interested in journalism.
In the meantime, let me know where you are, what you're doing, and most importantly, what you think about the above -- or anything else. Catch you in September. bk
click to order
j.linx: news, connections and conversations on the future of journalism
- barbara kelley
- I teach journalism and direct the journalism emphasis at Santa Clara University. As a freelance journalist, i have written for daily newspapers and their Sunday magazine sections as well as a variety of regional and national magazines. Among them: Christian Science Monitor, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Los Angeles Times, salon.com, California Magazine, San Francisco Magazine, Utne Reader, Health Magazine, Parenting Magazine, Redbook, Bay Area Parent and Pacific News Service. This blog is for students -- and anyone else who wants to join the conversation about the future of journalism.
subscribe to j.linx
Posts
Comments
4 comments:
Congrats to the blog, bk! I'll be a regular.
On today's topic: I agree, obviously.
Indeed, it is about time. I've never really understood the objections in the first place, except that the hidden one is clear: caskets conjure up bad images of the war. And we can't have that, now can we?
Now, if only Congress would continue to move on the federal shield law.
Jack, shield laws are nothing but protection for corporate media and the first step toward licensing journalists, which means licenses for corporate media outlets at the expense of new media and more obscure outfits.
Besides, while there have been a few high-profile subpoenas lately, they rarely happen over sources. Less than one a year, on average, over the past 15 years.
So stop bellyaching and do your job. If you get hauled into court, which is VERY unlikely, you'll be famous. So what's the problem?
Since when are shield laws licenses? I don't buy the corporate-media argument, anyway. Maybe if so-called "new media" and "obscure" outlets actually did journalism that was investigative enough to draw ire from the government and lead to contempt-of-court charges, I'd be more concerned.
They may be rare, but they are happening with more frequency, it seems. (Tony Loci's case was just the other month, with another defense reporter now facing scrutiny.)
If I get hauled into court, I wish it were about being famous. It's in reality hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, not to mention possible jail time. And no, the big evil corporate media moguls can't pay, as the judge refused Gannett to contribute in Loci's case.
No bellyaching here. But at least I offer my two cents with my name attached, anonymous.
Post a Comment