Updates from online newspapers:Prior to this week’s column, I would like to inform you that the online newspaper at reader.theoregonian.com now offers the full edition PDF download feature again. I appreciate everyone’s patience. I received feedback from readers that they truly wanted this to return, and now it does.
Greetings, reader
There are ramifications for media from two recent decisions made by the Oregon appeals court.
The first comes from the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and concerns Project Veritas, which was foiled by state law while attempting to carry out its unique form of undercover reporting in Oregon.
Some people may be familiar with Project Veritas. According to the New York Times, the conservative group and its creator, James O. Keefe, rose to notoriety by utilizing covert cameras and fictitious identities in movies meant to humiliate labor organizations, news outlets, and Democratic officials.
However, Oregon has a legislation that, with few exceptions, forbids recording a face-to-face conversation unless all participants have been told.
The two-party consent rule is what journalists refer to it as. It would be impossible for a reporter to covertly record a conversation using a hidden microphone during a meeting with a source without alerting the other person. However, that is a key component of Project Veritas’s gimmick.
Project Veritas claims that when people are informed that a conversation is being recorded, they either refuse to speak or give a distorted account, which lowers the standard of Project Veritas’ journalism, according to the federal ruling.
The federal appeals court said that Oregon’s statute should remain highly protective of privacy rights. Project Veritas’ argument that the statute violated its First Amendment rights was dismissed.
I typically believe that reporters should work in the open, but there are undoubtedly instances of dire circumstances where they have used concealed cameras to reveal misconduct. Transparency is one of journalism’s fundamental principles, and in most situations, we should incorporate it into our own practices.
However, what about all those TV series that incorporate footage that was obtained illegally?
It must be of vital public interest, such as exposing significant system failure at the highest levels, or it must prevent serious harm to individuals, and it must be used after all other options for obtaining the same information have been exhausted, among many other requirements set forth by the trade group Radio Television Digital News Association.
Additionally, the association points out that journalists ought to consider legal issues. Laws vary from state to state.
According to Oregon law, recording is permitted in specific public settings, such protests, where everything is visible and notification is challenging. One of the exceptions to the legislation allows Oregonians to record public or semipublic gatherings, including hearings before governmental or quasi-governmental organizations, trials, news conferences, public speeches, rallies, and athletic or other events, provided that their recording device is not hidden.
You may be wondering why there are so many cell phone recordings of people being mistreated by police officers.
A law enforcement exception that permits the recording of police officers carrying out their official duties in public was passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2015. Federal case law had already recognized this right.
According to Oregon’s current exemption, you can record police officers as long as the recording is made in an open manner, when the officer is carrying out official duties, the conversation can be heard without the need for artificial amplification, and the recorder is at a location where they are permitted to be.
The charge against journalists who are arrested for filming police activities in public is usually not that they were doing so. Instead, authorities might claim that because they had ordered everyone to leave, the reporter was in an area where he was not allowed to remain.
The court of appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled resoundingly in favor of restricting covert recordings.
We have no qualms about coming to the conclusion that secretly recording a conversation raises privacy issues that are distinct from and more damaging than simply having one’s spoken words heard and repeated, the verdict stated. Although recordings are a particularly dependable and effective way to preserve and share information, they are also a particularly dependable and effective way to violate privacy.
Journalists ought to work during the day, not at night.
The second case, which involved a claim of publication of a misleading statement in a television advertisement during a political campaign, was brought before the Oregon Court of Appeals. Mike Erickson, a Republican competing against Democrat Andrea Salinas to represent Oregon in the 6th Congressional District, filed the complaint.
The appeals court’s decision is significant because it set a high standard for a defamation lawsuit, even though the case did not involve a news outlet publishing about the claims in the advertising.
According to Erickson’s claim, the advertisement misrepresented that he had been charged with felony drug possession. He was actually never charged with a narcotics offense, claiming to police during an arrest in 2016 that a prescription oxycodone tablet he had on him was for his wife. He maintained that Salinas’ assertions in the advertisement demonstrated a careless disrespect for reality.
However, the court dismissed his case.
According to the verdict, we reject the plaintiff’s position because it depends on a particular interpretation of the phrase “charged” when it comes to the start of a felony criminal prosecution against an individual in an Oregon court. However, the term “charge” or “charged” is frequently used in a less formal sense to refer to being accused of a crime by law enforcement, regardless of whether the offense is a felony or not, and regardless of whether a case is prosecuted.
Because the court set a high standard for publishing incorrect information in this instance, journalists are greatly protected in their work. Over the years, courts have upheld press freedom while understanding that journalists are fallible.
The judges in the Erickson-Salinas case decided that the word “charged” was used more broadly and that this was not a mistake, much less a careless one.
In a case like this, a strongly retributive decision might have discouraged news outlets from covering public people, including political candidates. The court was correct.
[email protected] is my email address.
