As a member of the media, it is clear that all of you do not really understand what REALLY happened with this motion.
This forum is dedicated to allowing all points of view and embracing opinions that fall outside that on the general public. I find the comment that WS posters as an entity "clearly don't understand" to be not only editorial in nature but also discriminatory. JMO
But let me assure you: most in the media are not "whining" about the 5th DCA's ruling. They're applauding it. As a member of the media
(accepted in good faith while unverfied) would you not agree that there is no way to speak for media at large?
As any professional journalism organization (Poynter Institute, IRE, SPJ, etc) will tell you, it is highly unethical for journalists to enter into a quid-pro-quo for information. Likewise, it is unethical for journalists to withhold known information from the public (with possibly a few rare exceptions, such as a threat to national security) I could not agree more. That said...I find the practice of courting media darlings by any defense team to be not only transparent, but lacking in ethics as well.
Imagine if President Obama rounded up a small number of reporters and promised to give them exclusive information if they promised to report in on his terms and when he wanted it. The public would go nuts, accusing those media of bias and being the president's lap dog. As it happens in many cases the public tends to cry foul with no other motivation than hearing their own opinion published.......we do live in a rather narcissistic society do we not?
When Judge Perry first proposed the "confidentiality agreement", he did so with genuine kindness, knowing the media would appreciate the extra time to transport and set up their equipment. IMO he did so not out of kindness for set up triage...but instead as a gesture of good will and demonstration of pure intention. Again JMO.
But Judge Perry is not a journalist, and did not appreciate just how seriously most organizations take their ethical responsibility. While many journalists do take their ethical obligations to heart...sadly many do not. It is not Judge Perry's job to weed out the bad apples, but only apply a fair and non biased agreement that proves a neutral position other than the responsibility to preserve the rights of KC.
When Perry announced the agreement, nearly all the media organizations immediately opposed it on ethical grounds. Those that filed the appeal hardly qualify as "nearly all" and IMO that term is nothing more than ...shall we say.."puffery".
I am only aware of two media companies that were willing to sign the agreement: InSession (which would have benefited the most by having extra time to set up all of their equipment needed for the courthouse pool feed), and WFTV (which some in Orlando consider to be among the most unethical news organizations in town). As an ethical journalist....would you not agree that name calling and disparaging remarks are ..."unethical"?
You are all smart people. Think about it. Why would all the other news outlets refuse to sign Perry's agreement? It was a win-win for them. They would get advance notice of the jury selection location, and if they learned about it from an independent source, they were still allowed to report it! What harm would there be in signing the agreement? And given that statement....why would the motion have been needed in the first place?
The harm would have been the selling-out of journalistic integrity and credibility. (You can argue that the media has sold-out in their coverage of the Anthony case. But clearly many media organizations still subscribe to a level of professional standards.) So I can assume these comments are not affiliated with NBC, ABC, CBS, etc?
So when the Associated Press (a reputable media company) led the charge against Judge Perry's agreement, they had good reason to challenge it in court. And the 5th DCA agreed, striking it down. I was not aware that the AP led the charge. Good to know.
Of course, the AP and others could have simply torn up Perry's agreement and not worried about it. But when it comes to the business aspect of news, Perry's agreement gave unethical journalists a huge competitive advantage. I don't agree but respect that individual opinion. I have ethics so I leave room for alternative views.
Those outlets that signed the agreement and were given advance notice of the jury selection location could have shown up there, looked for some obscure independent "confirmation" such as a taped off parking lot or a glimpse of the prosecutors, and then broadcast their "exclusive" to the world. Sure they could have and thus far have no,t to my knowledge.
(The 5th DCA ruling raised questions of how Perry's agreement could be enforced. It's possible that a party that signed the agreement and then reported the location might later be forced to reveal their independent "sources" in court, another major violation of journalism ethics. The agreement had many pitfalls I don't think many of you considered.) Again as an ethical journalist, wouldn't you agree that there is no way to make a blanket statement purporting what people may or may not have considered?
The organizations that refused to sign the agreement lost nothing. They were never going to receive information from the court about jury selection anyway. But with the 5th DCA's ruling, unethical organizations that are willing to sell-out their journalistic integrity will no longer have an unfair advantage over those that abide by some level of professional responsibility. And when checkbook journalism, inflated photo licensing fees, and other perks are fully disclosed by ALL media entities, we will indeed have a level playing field.
What I think confused many of you was the secondary issue raised by the media's attorney involving improper closure of a public proceeding. Again.....assumptions.
In any other case, it would be outrageous for a judge to intentionally block the public from learning about a court hearing. Which for the record, he did not do. Semantics are an amazing theory. The media attorney had a professional duty to make those arguments on behalf of her clients, and force the judge to explain his highly unusual decision. Additionally, she had a responsibility to cite case law that applied to the motion and be aware of all the facts before going into a hearing as a formidable advocate for the rights you assert.
But I suspect she probably knew what the 5th DCA later affirmed: this is not a usual case, and the judge has wide discretion to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial. That might explain why her arguments over that aspect were less-than-compelling.
But in the end, her media clients (and every other organization that refused to sign the agreement) got what they wanted: the same access to the court proceedings as everyone else. As they would have anyway....just not with the cherry on top.
