BOSTON (1/8/2021) — State Representative Lori Ehrlich (D-Marblehead) and State Senator Brendan Crighton (D-Lynn) announced Thursday the inclusion of their journalism commission legislation, An Act establishing a commission to study journalism in underserved communities, as part of the Economic Development bill passed by the legislature and sent to the Governor’s desk.
This legislation, filed for the first time this session, would create a state commission to assess the state of local journalism in Massachusetts, including the adequacy of press coverage in the Commonwealth’s cities and towns and the sustainability of local press business models.
The Society of Professional Journalists Foundation awards about $300,000 in grant monies annually. In the past, some of these grants have been awarded to New England organizations.
The grants primarily support SPJ and also provide support to organizations and causes that further their mission.
Applications are open until February 1, 2021, 11:59 p.m. ET.
Grant requests are first reviewed by the Foundation Grants and Awards Committee and then their recommendations are sent to the SPJ Foundation Board of Directors for their review and selection.
– SPJ ($22,438) – National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association ($5,000) – WETA (PBS Newshour) ($2,500) – New England First Amendment Coalition ($1,500) – James W. Foley Legacy Foundation ($5,000) – SPJ Region 3 ($2,500) – National Press Photographers Association ($33,200) – KUOW ($10,000)
Assembling to protest is our right under the First Amendment — it’s how we talk to each other as a nation.
This column expresses the views of Gene Policinski, senior fellow for the First Amendment, Freedom Forum. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.
Sometimes politely. But often not. Occasionally at the top of our lungs. Frequently with brutally frank messages. And often in ways that spark counterprotests.
Just as the nation’s founders intended — and it is still a good thing we do.
What happened Wednesday when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol was not a protest protected by the First Amendment. It was a criminal act. A stain upon the fabric of democracy.
Freedom of speech and press, as well as to assemble and to petition for change, provide the real means to speak to each other across the nation’s deepest divides. Those freedoms are the way we give voice to those who feel ignored by the powerful.
One aspect of those freedoms is to provide a kind of national safety valve for the normal frustrations built into democracy — where elections and legislative decisions by their very nature are a form of majority rule until the next election.
We have been doing a lot of talking lately. Mostly peaceably. But when mobs replace protest with chaos, it betrays the core principles on which the United States was founded and the role is has played for more than two centuries as a worldwide beacon of freedom and the rule of law. There is no First Amendment shield for violence, no matter the motive.
Yes, we are intently discussing and debating some of the most important challenges that the nation faces, from Black Lives Matter protests over racial bias and racial dignity, to COVID-19 demonstrations for and against pandemic health restrictions. Waiting in the wings are the demonstrations, marches and protests over ongoing issues such as abortion, gun laws and voting rights. The venues will range from the web to public meetings to city sidewalks and rural byways and, yes, the steps of the Capitol.
As differing as the subjects, points of view and mediums may be across 330 million citizens, there are some fundamental facts for all to acknowledge — and in the wake of Wednesday’s violence, reaffirm:
A democracy is only as strong as those willing to exercise their freedoms in the service of a better nation;
We sometimes must hear voices and messages that challenge our fundamental beliefs, if only to be better prepared to defend our own positions.
To be sure, there is no provision in the First Amendment’s 45 words for universal agreement or quick solutions to what ails the republic. The First Amendment is a constitutional starting point, not a finish line.
The very real tension of the First Amendment’s promise to produce positive change is this: Sometimes it doesn’t. The pace of change is often too slow for advocates and too fast for opponents. Perhaps that’s why assembly and petition lag behind the other First Amendment freedoms in public understanding. But as many as a third of our fellow citizens have trouble even naming one of the First Amendment freedoms (which also include religion, speech and press).
While we tend today to choose speech as the most important freedom among those five, petition was the keystone for many of our nation’s founders. Protecting the right to speak the truth as each of us sees it, they reasoned, would protect the other four freedoms in law and democracy in practice.
If we want our ideas to be heard, we must encourage the rights of our opponents to speak also. We must disavow those on the right and left who would demonize dissent, discourage debate or deny a platform for all to be heard. And we must resist resorting to violence when conversation lags or fails to produce the results we seek.
Our nation’s history shows us that when we talk to each other, and when we listen, we are making progress at solving problems, correcting wrongs and admittedly, often imperfectly, making better the lives of ourselves and our fellow citizens.
That applies whether we are gathering in the nation’s capital city over election results or in our hometowns where we are free to publicly express views on everyday matters like school policies or streets that need to be paved.
Those difficult conversations are worth having, despite the frustrations. Those contrary views are worth expressing, peaceably, no matter the tensions of the moment.
And those rights are worth preserving, no matter our divisions — and no matter the actions of a mob.
2020 is the challenging year that just won’t go away, however much we wish it would, as many current issues over First Amendment freedoms flop over into the new year.
This column expresses the views of Gene Policinski, senior fellow for the First Amendment, Freedom Forum. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.
In the broad realm of freedom of speech, there’s little doubt debate will continue in the new Congress around the tangential First Amendment controversy over legal protections for companies hosting content on the web — aka Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
The law largely removes liability from companies for user-posted content on their sites. While not directly a First Amendment issue, the fight does have major implications for users’ free speech on the web, as we know it today, as well for as social media companies’ rights.
President Donald J. Trump and conservatives claim the provision is being used to hide partisan discrimination by major technology companies against right-wing voices. Liberal critics say the law removes incentives for such online operations to seriously fight misinformation.
Advocates for keeping the law “as is” say that without it, social media companies would face a myriad of potential lawsuits and thus dramatically limit what users can freely post on sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, WhatsApp and Instagram. No company will be able moderate the web’s current traffic, they say, estimated by multiple sources at 500,000 hours of user video uploaded to YouTube, 188 million emails and 18 million texts every minute.
Controversy will also continue surrounding the First Amendment’s two least-known freedoms — petition and assembly — as multiple state legislatures consider increasing criminal and civil penalties for demonstrators who block streets or sidewalks or simply participate in events where, at some point, a violent act occurs.
Critics of the proposals, many of which have been introduced over the past five years, say their real motives are the stifling of dissenting or minority views, though advocates claim the new provisions are rooted in legitimate law and order concerns about violence and property damages.
In the area of religious liberty, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this spring on Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, involving both the First Amendment’s free exercise and establishment clauses. In the case, a religious-backed foster care agency is challenging a city decision to cancel a contract because the agency refused to provide services to married same-sex couples, citing religious grounds.
There is no doubt that as COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on public gatherings continue into the new year, so will legal challenges rooted in the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.
There are some new First Amendment issues for 2021 as a result of the incoming Biden administration, though even here, many are tinged by actions or views from the Trump years.
A top concern for free-press advocates is the potential for the Supreme Court’s new conservative majority to review the 1963 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, which provided wide protection from defamation claims by government officials and other public figures if actual error was inadvertent or not caused by reckless disregard for the truth.
A longstanding target of press critics and Trump, the decision is rooted in the theory that such protection is needed to foster the widest possible debate on public issues. Trump and others claim the decision makes it virtually impossible for officials and public figures to successfully repair deliberate damage to their reputations and that it gives journalists free license to report so-called “fake news.”
Of concern for some is the potential return to Obama-era regulations reversed by Trump that were aimed at combatting sexual harassment on college campuses, which critics said stepped on free-speech protections, particularly where online comments were deemed to be “sexual in nature.”
The Supreme Court is expected to decide in January whether to hear an appeal of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that public school authorities may not punish student speech made away from school grounds. Other circuits have made differing decisions.
Some First Amendment experts also are concerned the incoming administration may be open to reducing or eliminating the First Amendment protections for what some deem “hate speech” or speech demeaning to women or minority religious groups. At present, such speech generally is protected, with some arguing that in addition to a core right to voice one’s own views, it is necessary to hear such speech to effectively argue against it.
Free-press supporters are already calling on President-elect Joe Biden to actively repudiate the Trump claim that mainstream news media are the “enemy of the people,” with some calling for new legislation to aid financially ailing local news operations — seen by some as counterintuitive for a “free press” — along with an international-U.S. effort to support free-press principles and journalists globally.
Welcome to the First Amendment in 2021 — with its echoes of 2020’s year of pandemic, protest and presidential-political turmoil.
With a few simple questions and just a little extra effort, reporters and editors can quickly improve the quality and value of their work and raise the profile and credibility of their news organization.
This column expresses the views ofBart Pfankuch, content director of South Dakota News Watch; contact him at bart.pfankuch@sdnewswatch.org.
And if done correctly, and regularly, this new method of reporting stories can lead to positive changes in our communities and the lives of residents.
The concept is called “solutions journalism,” and it was defined and launched by the appropriately named Solutions Journalism Network. This new form of journalism seeks to look for and cover topics of great importance by examining responses to problems, seeking out and defining solutions, and sharing with readers what is working in our society and why.
As a recent devotee to SJ, let me say upfront: this method is not about choosing only upbeat topics to report on or softening your reporting in any way.
That said, implementing SJ does result in more positive reporting and a slight shift away from only presenting negative information on problems, challenges, or tragedies. I think we can all agree that in today’s media world, particularly amid a pandemic and ongoing political and social division, the reporting, presenting, and consuming of news can be a pretty big downer and that if there was ever a time for a new, more uplifting approach, it is now.
The group’s mission is to “spread the practice of solutions journalism: rigorous reporting on responses to social problems. We seek to rebalance the news so that every day people are exposed to stories that help them understand problems and challenges, and stories that show potential ways to respond.”
The “response” element of that statement is critical. SJ seeks to drill in on problems and issues just like traditional reporting but adds an element that examines how problems can be solved or addressed to improve life and society.
The process will lead reporters to do a bit more research, make a few more phone calls, and add material to stories that might have been overlooked in the past. SJ does not require much more work but does require a new way of thinking about the approach to stories and the reporting on issues.
South Dakota News Watch, the non-profit journalism organization where I work, has recently received a pair of small grants from the SJN and undergone training in how SJ can be used. We’ve also embarked on efforts to implement SJ in our work.
Some stories have been born with an SJ focus in place right from the start. For instance, News Watch set out this fall to examine how the pandemic was affecting education on Native American reservations. The result was a newsy in-depth main bar on how limited internet coverage, a lack of access to computers and other socio-economic challenges were inhibiting teaching and learning.
But we went further, and with SJ top of mind, produced a sidebar drilling in on one remote reservation that used federal grant money, assistance from a non-profit, and ingenuity by local leaders to create its own local internet system to reach families for remote learning.
Somewhat to my surprise, the SJ piece fared extremely well in audience metrics. The piece received many positive comments on Facebook and attracted a new audience we hadn’t tapped into before.
News Watch has also taken an SJ approach to many stories in a more subtle way that has raised the importance and value of our work. In a story about flaws in COVID-19 contact tracing, we sought out and found some places where tracing had been effective and explained why. In a piece about pandemic electoral challenges, we highlighted innovative methods for holding a fair, safe in-person vote (one county with tight office space bought a surplus military tent and added lights and heat to provide for socially distanced early voting and ballot processing.) In a story on how isolation was causing a mental and physical decline in nursing home residents, we revealed how one home had used plastic, wood, and shoulder-length agricultural insemination gloves to create a COVID-safe “hugging window” for residents and visitors. Some of that reporting may have happened anyway, but our involvement with SJN has led us to make a hunt for solutions part of every story discussion and reporting effort.
To get started now, ask some of the following questions: Where else is this problem happening, and has anyone made progress? What responses to this problem have worked, where did success occur and why? What evidence is there of success and how is it measured? Can solutions from elsewhere be replicated in our community? Am I giving a full and fair picture of this problem and highlighting potential solutions?
I encourage you to learn more by visiting the network at solutionsjournalism.org. You’ll feel better reporting on solutions, and your readers and community leaders will appreciate it, too.
The law firm of Sternberg, Naccari & White has been on the front line of the Cares Act and its implications for the past nine months, including advising many media company clients.
On December 28, two of the firm’s attorneys, Scott Sternberg and Keith Naccari, presented a webinar for news organizations to review the implications of the recently approved 2021 stimulus package. The webinar was put together by the Louisiana Press Association, and they graciously opened it up to NENPA members.
The presentation covered adjustments to the PPP (Paycheck Protection Program), clarified tax consequences for the first and second draw of the PPP, reviewed new expenses that can now be deducted for the forgiveness of PPP loans, and discussed a potential opportunity for net operating loss carryback.
A few things to note on qualifications. To be eligible they will look at your NAICS industry code and you must provide local news or be an emergency news service. If you got the first round of PPP you can still apply for this round.
Important areas that news organizations can benefit from include expense deductions against your PPP for covered supplier costs (ex. paper, ink), capital expenditures (ex. buildouts to reconfigure office layouts or add protection barriers), and other expenses for purchasing supplies to keep an office safe and clean (ex. Clorox wipes, masks, hand sanitizer.)
If you think you qualify for this round of PPP loans, they are recommending you have your quarterly information pulled together and file for the loan as soon as possible.
Annually, the Society of Professional Journalists presents the Mark of Excellence Awards, honoring the best in student journalism. The awards offer categories for print, radio, television and online collegiate journalism.
Entries are first judged on the regional level. First-place regional winners advance to the national competition, and most are recognized at their respective regional SPJ conference in the spring of 2021. National winners will be showcased on spj.org.
Report for America announced on Dec. 8 the selection of 64 new local news organizations as host newsroom partners, 14 are located in New England.
The program also opened the application window for reporters to apply as corps members in 2021. Information about how to apply can be found here and for each specific reporting opportunity listed below by clicking on the newsroom name.
Report for America’s support is adding more than 100 new reporting positions and expanding to more than 200 newsrooms across the country.
A complete list of all newsrooms, including those already in New England can be found here.
The newly-selected newsrooms and beats in New England are:
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT Connecticut Public (WNPR) Beat: Housing in Fairfield County Skills: All experience levels
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE Granite State News Collaborative Beat: New Hampshire statehouse and tracking of any racial justice-related legislation Skills: Emerging journalists
PORTLAND, MAINE Maine Public Beat: Refugee communities in the state Skills: All experience levels
SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS New England Public Media Beat: Socio-economic disparities, as part of an Equity Team Skills: Emerging journalists
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE New Hampshire Public Radio Beat: Latino communities in southern NH Skills: All experience levels
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT New Haven Independent Beat: Government accountability in Hamden, CT Skills: Emerging journalists
Today marks a hidden holiday, as uncelebrated as it is unappreciated. It was 229 years ago today that the United States ratified the Bill of Rights, ensuring unprecedented freedom for the people of an emerging nation.
This column expresses the views of Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University.
Bill of Rights Day has actually been a national holiday since Nov. 28, 1941, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt designated Dec. 15 “Bill of Rights Day.” Roosevelt had big plans, envisioning flag-flying, and ceremonies nationwide. Roosevelt observed that Adolph Hitler feared “our freedom of speech, press, and religion.” Unfortunately, the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7 erased all the ambitious plans to mark the date. There’s no time to celebrate freedom when you’re fighting to preserve it.
That was almost 80 years ago, and America continues to take the Bill of Rights for granted. At just 500 words, it packs more than 20 rights into 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the promise of a Bill of Rights was the key to getting the Constitution ratified in the first place.
Given that there won’t be cake or gifts or greeting cards, the best way to celebrate Bill of Rights Day is simply to reflect on its importance. And depending upon your personal priorities, some liberties may loom larger than others.
The National Rifle Association touts the Second Amendment as America’s “first freedom.” That’s either bad math or poetic license, but you get the point. If our government took those freedoms away, you might have to wrest those back with “the right to bear arms.”
Americans with a deep and abiding faith are grateful for the freedom to worship and be free of government interference with their faith.
Those who treasure personal privacy and the sanctity of their homes would be thankful for the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Those who have been accused of a crime would welcome the fair trial guarantees contained in the Sixth Amendment.
All of these liberties are critical to the kind of nation we are, founded on freedom and fairness.
I am particularly grateful, though, for the one-two punch of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Together they protect our free expression and safeguard the entire Bill of Rights.
The preamble to the Constitution set forth the goal of “a more perfect union.” The phrase was both aspirational and wise. There was no way a fledgling country could get everything right, let alone draw up a blueprint that would guarantee the liberty of every American.
And of course, the Constitution didn’t. Slavery was left intact and women were left without a voice or vote. As lofty as America’s ideals were, there were still inequities and injustices to address.
It would take centuries of free speech and press to illuminate and address the needs of this imperfect union. Although critics of the contemporary press – which includes newspapers, radio stations, television stations, websites, and every other form of informational media – like to use phrases like “fake news, “ the truth is that the newspapers of 1791 were far more biased than their modern descendants. They were largely political organs full of outrage, exaggeration, and lies. Yet it was in that very environment that the American people demanded a free press be a part of the Bill of Rights. They saw it as a check on a new and powerful central government and protection against abuse of the Constitution and yes, the new Bill of Rights. Journalists who do their jobs well today are fulfilling the mission set forth for them in 1791.
The most impressive thing about the Bill of Rights is that a document written 229 years ago remains so vital, vibrant and essential.
The aggressive journalists empowered by the First Amendment have gone on to monitor and irritate every president from John Adams to Donald Trump. The assembled citizens who spoke out against slavery and demanded universal suffrage have contemporary counterparts demanding racial justice today. Those 10 amendments have served us well.
Of course, when it comes to patriotic holidays, none rival Independence Day. But that holiday recalls a nation just starting out, committing in general terms to a nation founded on liberty.
On December 15th, 1791, the first generation of Americans fulfilled that promise. We could love our country, but also voice our concerns about its actions and priorities. That honest exchange of ideas – fueled by freedom of press, speech, and assembly – can make for dissonance and division in our politics. But it also makes for the strongest and most enduring nation on the face of the earth.
Violence isn’t protest
Assembling to protest is our right under the First Amendment — it’s how we talk to each other as a nation.
Sometimes politely. But often not. Occasionally at the top of our lungs. Frequently with brutally frank messages. And often in ways that spark counterprotests.
Just as the nation’s founders intended — and it is still a good thing we do.
What happened Wednesday when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol was not a protest protected by the First Amendment. It was a criminal act. A stain upon the fabric of democracy.
Freedom of speech and press, as well as to assemble and to petition for change, provide the real means to speak to each other across the nation’s deepest divides. Those freedoms are the way we give voice to those who feel ignored by the powerful.
One aspect of those freedoms is to provide a kind of national safety valve for the normal frustrations built into democracy — where elections and legislative decisions by their very nature are a form of majority rule until the next election.
We have been doing a lot of talking lately. Mostly peaceably. But when mobs replace protest with chaos, it betrays the core principles on which the United States was founded and the role is has played for more than two centuries as a worldwide beacon of freedom and the rule of law. There is no First Amendment shield for violence, no matter the motive.
Yes, we are intently discussing and debating some of the most important challenges that the nation faces, from Black Lives Matter protests over racial bias and racial dignity, to COVID-19 demonstrations for and against pandemic health restrictions. Waiting in the wings are the demonstrations, marches and protests over ongoing issues such as abortion, gun laws and voting rights. The venues will range from the web to public meetings to city sidewalks and rural byways and, yes, the steps of the Capitol.
As differing as the subjects, points of view and mediums may be across 330 million citizens, there are some fundamental facts for all to acknowledge — and in the wake of Wednesday’s violence, reaffirm:
To be sure, there is no provision in the First Amendment’s 45 words for universal agreement or quick solutions to what ails the republic. The First Amendment is a constitutional starting point, not a finish line.
The very real tension of the First Amendment’s promise to produce positive change is this: Sometimes it doesn’t. The pace of change is often too slow for advocates and too fast for opponents. Perhaps that’s why assembly and petition lag behind the other First Amendment freedoms in public understanding. But as many as a third of our fellow citizens have trouble even naming one of the First Amendment freedoms (which also include religion, speech and press).
While we tend today to choose speech as the most important freedom among those five, petition was the keystone for many of our nation’s founders. Protecting the right to speak the truth as each of us sees it, they reasoned, would protect the other four freedoms in law and democracy in practice.
If we want our ideas to be heard, we must encourage the rights of our opponents to speak also. We must disavow those on the right and left who would demonize dissent, discourage debate or deny a platform for all to be heard. And we must resist resorting to violence when conversation lags or fails to produce the results we seek.
Our nation’s history shows us that when we talk to each other, and when we listen, we are making progress at solving problems, correcting wrongs and admittedly, often imperfectly, making better the lives of ourselves and our fellow citizens.
That applies whether we are gathering in the nation’s capital city over election results or in our hometowns where we are free to publicly express views on everyday matters like school policies or streets that need to be paved.
Those difficult conversations are worth having, despite the frustrations. Those contrary views are worth expressing, peaceably, no matter the tensions of the moment.
And those rights are worth preserving, no matter our divisions — and no matter the actions of a mob.