Dear Lord,
I plan things out. You created me this way. You made me love organization, color-coding, and list making. But why then Lord, do you take these very plans, and flip turn them upside down so that I no longer know which way I am going?
I am scared to ask for clarity because I am afraid that I won't like it. I am scared that you will take my post-its and rip them into a million shreds.
Please still my heart and let me fret not.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Privacy/Political Power Blog
In 1990, Brian Karem, a television broadcast reporter joined the ranks of journalism martyrs.
Working for San Antonio’s KMOL-TV, Karem defiantly ignored a series of three court orders to turn over notes from a phone interview. This interview was with a murder suspect. Both prosecution and defense attorneys demanded the notes on the pretense that it would be beneficial in the court case.
According to the Spokane Chronicle, Karem refused the court order because he had promised the three individual sources not to divulge their names. The sources felt that being publicly named would be life threatening.
The New York Times reported that when subpoenas were initially issued, Karem handed over the majority of his paperwork, including the taped interview, along with notes. The one thing Karem did not hand over, was a piece of paper that listed the names of the three individuals who helped arrange the interviews with the suspect.
Karem was then sentenced six months in prison for contempt of court. The New York Times followed up with a story after Karem had served two weeks of this sentence. One of the individuals agreed to be named, and Karem was freed. The First Amendment Center records that eventually the remaining sources also came forward.
I originally have always believed that every journalist should be willing to go to the grave (or prison) for their integrity. If I was in Karem’s situation, I would most certainly hope that I would demonstrate the same courageousness.
However, perhaps I say this only because Karem only served a short part of his sentence, and in the end, all was well. The Cohen text suggests that I not be so bold in my silence. Cohen urges a balance between the “freedom to speak to the freedom to discover the truth.”
Cohen goes on to expand on the First Amendment –it is not meant to punish the truth, but it also should not prevent any steps towards the uncovering of said truth.
This idea can be applied to Karem’s case. He was not to be punished for pursuing the truth, but he was punished for preventing the whole truth to be disclosed.
Whole truth is where journalistic integrity is challenged at its peak. A journalist should be willing to publish the truth, even if it was not the original intent of the article.
Other reasons that Cohen would argue that Karem was in the wrong, include very practical rationale. Among these include the inconvenience of fighting against the subpoenas as a journalist, and also the emotional issues that derive from such a harrowing time.
We are urged in our journalism classes to create the sense of trust with a source. It would go against all journalistic integrity, personal principle and Christian morals to violate this trust.
However, we are also instructed to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matt 22:21) Should the government request information, it would be in the best interest to give it to them.
Working for San Antonio’s KMOL-TV, Karem defiantly ignored a series of three court orders to turn over notes from a phone interview. This interview was with a murder suspect. Both prosecution and defense attorneys demanded the notes on the pretense that it would be beneficial in the court case.
According to the Spokane Chronicle, Karem refused the court order because he had promised the three individual sources not to divulge their names. The sources felt that being publicly named would be life threatening.
The New York Times reported that when subpoenas were initially issued, Karem handed over the majority of his paperwork, including the taped interview, along with notes. The one thing Karem did not hand over, was a piece of paper that listed the names of the three individuals who helped arrange the interviews with the suspect.
Karem was then sentenced six months in prison for contempt of court. The New York Times followed up with a story after Karem had served two weeks of this sentence. One of the individuals agreed to be named, and Karem was freed. The First Amendment Center records that eventually the remaining sources also came forward.
I originally have always believed that every journalist should be willing to go to the grave (or prison) for their integrity. If I was in Karem’s situation, I would most certainly hope that I would demonstrate the same courageousness.
However, perhaps I say this only because Karem only served a short part of his sentence, and in the end, all was well. The Cohen text suggests that I not be so bold in my silence. Cohen urges a balance between the “freedom to speak to the freedom to discover the truth.”
Cohen goes on to expand on the First Amendment –it is not meant to punish the truth, but it also should not prevent any steps towards the uncovering of said truth.
This idea can be applied to Karem’s case. He was not to be punished for pursuing the truth, but he was punished for preventing the whole truth to be disclosed.
Whole truth is where journalistic integrity is challenged at its peak. A journalist should be willing to publish the truth, even if it was not the original intent of the article.
Other reasons that Cohen would argue that Karem was in the wrong, include very practical rationale. Among these include the inconvenience of fighting against the subpoenas as a journalist, and also the emotional issues that derive from such a harrowing time.
We are urged in our journalism classes to create the sense of trust with a source. It would go against all journalistic integrity, personal principle and Christian morals to violate this trust.
However, we are also instructed to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matt 22:21) Should the government request information, it would be in the best interest to give it to them.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Prayer blog #1
Dear God,
I see people doing things in your name that aren't worthy of your name. That's not to say that I ever do anything of recognition, but God, these people are awful witnesses, and discouraging human beings. Please let me see them as people that you still love, despite their wickedness and blindness to your infinite love and grace. You love them unconditionally, and please teach me to do the same.
Thank you Lord for recovering my health. I pray that you help me get back on track with school, but I thank you for the lessons you continue to teach me outside of the classroom. You are the ultimate teacher.
Missions conference is next week. I'll see my parents for the first time in almost two years, and I'm terrified. I don't even want to expand on those feelings, but Lord, you know what I need. Strength, grace, you.
Thank you for watching out for me. For the lessons, the safety, the laughter, and each breath you allow me to take.
I see people doing things in your name that aren't worthy of your name. That's not to say that I ever do anything of recognition, but God, these people are awful witnesses, and discouraging human beings. Please let me see them as people that you still love, despite their wickedness and blindness to your infinite love and grace. You love them unconditionally, and please teach me to do the same.
Thank you Lord for recovering my health. I pray that you help me get back on track with school, but I thank you for the lessons you continue to teach me outside of the classroom. You are the ultimate teacher.
Missions conference is next week. I'll see my parents for the first time in almost two years, and I'm terrified. I don't even want to expand on those feelings, but Lord, you know what I need. Strength, grace, you.
Thank you for watching out for me. For the lessons, the safety, the laughter, and each breath you allow me to take.
Challenging the First Amendment
Westboro Baptist Church’s website’s URL is godhatesfags.com, where they proudly display a picket schedule. Westboro has been known since the 1950’s as an “anti-gay hate group” based in Topeka, Kansas.
(Photo credits: telegraph.co.uk)
Recently, their First Amendment right to hold their daily picketing has been put into question. The Supreme Court decided today that they will be reviewing the Westboro’s picketing and deciding if they are still protected under the First Amendment.
This was started by a 2007 case in which Albert Snyder, a father of a slain marine, sued the Westboro church for causing excessive emotional damage when they picketed his son’s funeral, reports The Star Topeka. The Maryland courts ruled in favor of Snyder, but this was later overruled by the appeal court, stating that they were protected under the First Amendment.
The Star Topeka reports that “Westboro’s adherents argue that the First Amendment is designed to protect speech the majority may not want to hear.”
This is a different case of censorship, because the actions in questions are not the sole responsibility of a gatekeeper, such as editors, who decide whether to print, film, publish something. Rather, this is an example of common people excessively demonstrating (and abusing) their freedom of speech.
Though Cohen states that an evil to censorship is partly that it causes people to be calloused, first-hand accounts in the Westboro case would argue that censorship is necessary at times.
“You don’t stand 30 feet from the entrance to a church with a sign depicting two men having anal intercourse,” Snyder said. “That wasn’t freedom of speech; it was harassment.”
Cohen claims that even if the most controversial topics (such as Westboro picketing gays) falls under the following categories, they are justified in (and obligated to) being shared with the population, despite the consequence:
1) Interesting – leading towards the truth
2) True claims - Encourage knowledge of the truth
3) Good art – these people helps understand
4) Depictions of good ways of life.
Even by following this slightly skewed set of criteria, it is evident that Westboro is not justified in their outrageous actions.
1) Though Westboro indeed has interesting and catchy taglines, they do not lead towards the truth. There is no evidence, within or without the church that “God Hates Fags.” Even an unbeliever has tangible evidence.
2) Westboro has no true claims, though they base their assertions on Biblical teachings. It is true that God hates sin (Heb 1:9) but Westboro’s claims are founded on God’s hate of people.
3) People do not understand more about anything (besides the true character of these individuals) through their actions. If anything, they are confusing people about the intention of God and the church.
4) There are no positive vibes derived from Westboro’s bold statements. God is not seen as good, nor are the people that He put on this earth.
By going by Cohen’s very criteria against censorship, it is clear that Westboro’s actions should not be protected under the First Amendment, and indeed be censored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
