More FOIA Requests, Please

Newsrooms may be slashing content and staff but one thing has (apparently) not suffered – Freedom of Information Act requests. A New York Times article found The Associated Press and Hearst Corporation have actually increased the number of FOIA requests sent to the federal government (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/media/15hearst.html?ref=business). “Some big companies, like Hearst and The Associated Press, have been quietly ramping up their legal efforts, by doing more of the work in-house — and saving costs by not hiring outside lawyers — and being more aggressive in states where they can recoup legal fees and at the federal level, which also allows plaintiffs in such access cases to sue for legal fees when they win,” according to the newspaper.

Hearst is now pursuing more First Amendment cases than ever before, according to the Times, and The AP was a part of 40 lawsuits in 2009 – up from about 30 four years ago.

This is a very good sign – for reporters and readers. Investigative work is one of the most important things journalists do. Reporters have a social and, I think, ethical duty to hold government agencies accountable for their deeds and dollars. I understand how expensive and time-consuming investigative work can be but it is vital to a strong, democratic society. It will be an enormous loss if this sort of work is lost in the breakdown of mainstream media, social media and the Internet.

These stories also show why professional journalists and their skills are so important. Professional reporters have access to files, people and information that is not otherwise available to “citizen journalists.” If an informant, whistleblower or disgruntled employee has an anonymous tip, is he going to call a blogger or a reporter at The Washington Post? A Post reporter will have the greatest impact. A professional (compensated) writer will also have the time and know-how to dig deep into documents. What is a blogger going to do with tens of thousands of pages worth of documents? Is a “citizen journalist” going to have the financial resources to appeal denied FOIA requests?

Smaller and mid-sized news organizations still have resources, though, even if they don’t have big bucks or high-profile attorneys. In California, there is the First Amendment Coalition (http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/legal-hotline/), which provides reporters with free legal consultations.

And closer to home there is good work being done at the intersection of journalism and the law: the Medill Innocence Project (http://www.medillinnocenceproject.org/). Through the project, undergraduates have the opportunity to investigate “possible miscarriages of justice.” The work done by these students have led to the release of wrongfully convicted men. Though prosecutors in the Andrew McKinney case are going after students and the program in some horribly misdirected expedition, it does not change the significance of the work being done by the project.

(Originally a post for a Medill class; February 2010).

Google, India and Freedom of Speech

Google, which does not create original content, is being asked to exercise editorial control over the information its search engine and affiliated sites make available to Internet users in India. An article in the Jan. 4, 2010 edition of the Wall Street Journal explores the issue of free speech inside the world’s largest democracy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126239086161213013.html?mod=djemMM). According to Indian officials quoted in the article, censoring potentially libelous or inflammatory Web sites and articles is intended to prevent violent outbursts from religious and political groups.

This is an example of how new media companies, including Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, need to adapt to cultural norms and laws overseas. In the United States, Google will not remove material from its search results regardless of its defamatory or offensive nature unless it violates the company’s user agreement. This was evident in November when the top result for a search of “Michelle Obama” pulled up a photograph that depicted the first lady as a monkey. Users complained to Google and the company posted this statement above the photo: “Sometimes our search results can be offensive. We agree.” The Web site was eventually removed from Google’s search because it contained a virus, which is against the company’s policy. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/6737933.html).

India seems to be somewhat of a balancing act for Internet companies. On the one hand, it is a democracy that allows its citizens the right to free speech. On the other hand, speech in India can be restricted to maintain “public order, decency or morality.” Is Google at the mercy of Indian authorities? Material is preemptively removed because of what may happen, not what has happened.

From a business perspective I can understand why Google would work with Indian officials to censor information but I think it can be a slippery slope. Google is setting a precedent that it will remove any Web page, article or blog flagged by users and government officials – without argument. There is a potential for abuse there. Google’s attorney in India, Gitanjali Duggal, points out that the company’s does have a standard. “Saying ‘I hate Shiv Sena’ is one thing, but saying ‘I Hate Shiv Sena because they hate Muslims’ is another thing … (it) brings in the concept of religion.” I think that distinction is somewhat irrelevant. What other qualifiers are out there?

What responsibility does Google have to steer clear of the country’s religious and ethnic struggles? Perhaps a social one. Perhaps a financial one, should the company wish to continue business in India (and with an estimated 52 million Web users, why wouldn’t it?). I question how long Internet companies can limit information before savvy users find more and more ways to go around filters. I think this just the latest example of new media finding its way through a world that has yet to catch up.

(This was originally a discussion post for a class at Medill; January 2010)