Mediaboss Marketing

Gene Policinski

Attention you so-called enemies of the people and alleged purveyors of biased reporting: Theres reason to think fewer people than last year might see you that way, despite the ongoing, politicized attacks from multiple quarters on the news medias credibility.

President Donald Trump hurled that enemies epithet at journalists some time ago, and continues to complain about biased news coverage nearly every time there are news accounts regarding contacts with Russian officials by his administration.

But such criticism comes with varying levels of vitriol from a variety of quarters, and started long before Trump took office. Often, the harshest criticism of the media comes just as much from those who consume news as from those who make it.

This year, however, there are signs that the publics disdain for the media has somewhat abated. The 2017 State of the First Amendment survey, released over the July 4 holiday by the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute in partnership with the Fors Marsh Group, found that:

A solid majority of the public about 68 percent still believes in the importance of news media as a watchdog on democracy. Less than half (43.2 percent) said they believe the news media tries to report the news without bias; but this figure is a marked improvement from 2015 (23 percent) and 2016 (24 percent). There are some likely reasons for this shift: A significant amount of TV, online and print journalism has shifted from the softer horse race focus of the 2016 election to this years focus on hard news and complex issues. And with more than a bit of irony as more Americans are inclined only to consume news from sources that line up with their individual perspectives, theres a likely parallel increase in the trust factor in those sources, even if they resemble echo chambers more than truth-tellers. Among those who believe that media tries to report unbiased information, most expressed a preference for news information that aligns with their own views (60.7 percent). Those more critical of media efforts to report news without bias were also less prone to report a preference for news aligned with their own views (49.1 percent).

So, no celebratory back flips in the nations newsrooms, please, especially since the uptick only puts the bias figure roughly back to levels seen in 2013 and 2014 (46 percent and 41 percent, respectively).

Those inclined to support the work of todays journalists hope that the drop in those who perceive media bias generally stems from that combination of dramatically increased visibility of news operations and their reporting on serious news, such as health care reform and investigations of Russian influence in the 2016 election. For my own part, I believe more people saw reporting of real news, not fluffy click-bait features and dramatic but mostly meaningless polling reports, and it earned back some of their lost approval and trust.

Heres an idea for journalists nationwide: Keep trying hard news, accountability reporting on issues that while not necessarily sexy matter the most to people and their communities, such as jobs, health care, education, and local and state government.

For years, news industry moguls and newsroom leaders have sought ways to reverse their dwindling income, which has led to fewer newsrooms resources and less real journalism, and which in turn has prompted additional loss of consumers. Clearly, mushy stories about the travails of celebrities, feel-good stories, and valuing tweets over investigative reporting are not working out that well.

Acting on this realization will mean putting an emphasis on innovation and finding new ways to report on subjects that, in themselves, dont necessarily draw in a new generation of readers. But therein is the opportunity for those who will be the news media success stories of the 21st century. This years survey results show that the opportunity is there, that news consumers are hungry for imaginative reporting on issues that directly impact their lives.

But we can still take comfort in the 20 percent drop in those who presume journalists are incapable of reporting without bias: Attitudes can change, and trust can be regained. Read the full report.

Editors Note: A version of this column appeared earlier on the Newseum Institute website as part of the 2017 State of the First Amendment report.

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

Original post:
First Amendment: More Americans see less media bias but why? - hays Post

Questions Neals belief in First Amendment

I was shocked to learn that Richard Neal and many other congressmen think we should take away the First Amendment rights of people who express their support of a boycott of Israel.

I am Jewish, and committed to Israels long-term survival. I think the thuggish actions and racist comments of Benjamin Netanyahus far-right Israeli government represent a long-term threat to that survival. Along with the constant theft of Palestinian land (land the whole world, including Israel, recognizes as Palestinian), these actions arouse deep-seated hatred which can only lead to destructive war. At the end, it will likely lead to the destruction of Israel.

So I think anyone in this country who backs the extremist Netanyahu is really backing the long-term destruction of the Jewish state, and certainly the destruction of Israeli democracy.

But if anyone came up with a law to deprive Netanyahu-backers of the right to express their views, I would oppose it to my last breath. Does Congressman Neal believe in the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech? He should be ashamed of himself.

David Ball

Northampton

See the original post:
David Ball: Questions Neal's belief in First Amendment - GazetteNET

A judge on Thursday declared as unconstitutional a local Wisconsin ordinance mandating that the makers of augmented reality games get special use permits if their mobile apps were to be played in county parks. The lawthe nation's first of its kindwas challenged on First Amendment grounds amid concerns it amounted to a prior restraint of a game maker's speech. What's more, the law was seemingly impossible to comply with.

The federal lawsuit was brought by a Southern California company named Candy Lab. The maker of Texas Rope 'Eman augmented reality game with features like Pokemon Gosued Milwaukee County after it adopted an AR ordinance in February in the wake of the Pokemon Go craze. Because some of its parks were overrun by a deluge of players, the county began requiring AR makers to get a permit before their apps could be used in county parks.

The permitting process also demanded that developers perform the impossible: estimate crowd size, event dates, and the times when mobile gamers would be playing inside county parks. The permits, which cost as much as $1,000, also required that developers describe plans for garbage collection, bathroom use, on-site security, and medical services. Without meeting those requirements, augmented reality publishers would be in violation of the ordinance if they published games that included playtime in Milwaukee County parks.

US District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking Milwaukee County from enforcing the law until the outcome of a trial tentatively set for April. "Greater injury will be inflicted upon plaintiff by the denial of injunctive relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of such relief," the judge ruled. (PDF)

The county did not immediately respond for comment.

In court papers, the county said (PDF) that augmented reality games like Texas Rope 'Em"werenot protected by the First Amendment:

Texas Rope 'Em is not entitled to First Amendment protection because it does not convey any messages or ideas. Unlike books, movies, music, plays and video gamesmediums of expression that typically enjoy First Amendment protectionTexas Rope 'Em has no plot, no storylines, no characters, and no dialogue. All it conveys is a random display of cards and a map. Absent the communicative features that invoke the First Amendment, Candy Lab has no First Amendment claim.

In Texas Rope 'Em, the county added, "The player simply views randomly generated cards and travels to locations to get more. That is not the type of speech that demands First Amendment safeguards."

Brian Wassom, Candy Lab's lawyer, said the judge's decision undercuts the county's argument.

"I think it's a huge win for the medium of augmented reality as a whole," he said in a telephone interview. "It's a strong affirmation that AR is a medium for creative expression."

Niantic, the developer of Pokemon Go, told Ars in a recent interview that it was working with Milwaukee County and other jurisdictions to alter game locations and to accommodate park hours.

Link:
Augmented reality wins big in 1st Amendment legal flap | Ars Technica - Ars Technica

But Candy Lab, maker of the AR game Texas Rope 'Em, sued the county and claimed that the ordinance was a First Amendment violation. They also asked the courts for an injunction of the rule before the lawsuit goes to trial next April, which a district judge granted on Thursday. In the ruling, the judge said, "Greater injury will be inflicted upon [Candy Labs] by the denial of injunctive relief than will be inflicted upon [Milwaukee County] by the granting of such relief."

Milwaukee County has argued that this isn't a First Amendment violation because the game and its makers don't have First Amendment rights. "Texas Rope 'Em is not entitled to First Amendment protection because it does not convey any messages or ideas. Unlike books, movies, music, plays and video games mediums of expression that typically enjoy First Amendment protection Texas Rope 'Em has no plot, no storylines, no characters and no dialogue," said Milwaukee County in its motion to dismiss the case. It also claims that the game isn't protected by the amendment because it constitutes illegal gambling.

The permit Milwaukee County began demanding treats AR gaming like a special event, requiring start and end times, expected numbers of participants, portable restroom supply and fees for things like garbage collection. All of which seem rather ridiculous to ask of a game developer.

In response to the judge's injunction approval, Candy Lab's attorney told Ars Technica, "I think it's a huge win for the medium of augmented reality as a whole. It's a strong affirmation that AR is a medium for creative expression."

Go here to read the rest:
First Amendment suit halts anti-'Pokmon Go' law - Engadget

First Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States that is part of the Bill of Rights and reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The clauses of the amendment are often called the establishment clause, the free exercise clause, the free speech clause, the free press clause, the assembly clause, and the petition clause.

The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted only what the federal government may do and did not bind the states. Most state constitutions had their own bills of rights, and those generally included provisions similar to those found in the First Amendment. But the state provisions could be enforced only by state courts.

In 1868, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people liberty without due process. Since then the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually used the due process clause to apply most of the Bill of Rights to state governments. In particular, from the 1920s to the 40s the Supreme Court applied all the clauses of the First Amendment to the states. Thus, the First Amendment now covers actions by federal, state, and local governments. The First Amendment also applies to all branches of government, including legislatures, courts, juries, and executive officials and agencies. This includes public employers, public university systems, and public school systems.

The First Amendment, however, applies only to restrictions imposed by the government, since the First and Fourteenth amendments refer only to government action. As a result, if a private employer fires an employee because of the employees speech, there is no First Amendment violation. There is likewise no violation if a private university expels a student for what the student said, if a commercial landlord restricts what bumper stickers are sold on the property it owns, or if an Internet service provider refuses to host certain Web sites.

Legislatures sometimes enact laws that protect speakers or religious observers from retaliation by private organizations. For example, Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans religious discrimination even by private employers. Similarly, laws in some states prohibit employers from firing employees for off-duty political activity. But such prohibitions are imposed by legislative choice rather than by the First Amendment.

The freedoms of speech, of the press, of assembly, and to petitiondiscussed here together as freedom of expressionbroadly protect expression from governmental restrictions. Thus, for instance, the government may not outlaw antiwar speech, speech praising violence, racist speech, pro-communist speech, and the like. Nor may the government impose special taxes on speech on certain topics or limit demonstrations that express certain views. The government also may not authorize civil lawsuits based on peoples speech, unless the speech falls within a traditionally recognized First Amendment exception. This is why, for example, people may not sue for emotional distress inflicted by offensive magazine articles about them, unless the articles are not just offensive but include false statements that fall within the defamation exception (see below Permissible restrictions on expression).

The free expression guarantees are not limited to political speech. They also cover speech about science, religion, morality, and social issues as well as art and even personal gossip.

Test Your Knowledge

President of the United States: Fact or Fiction?

Freedom of the press confirms that the government may not restrict mass communication. It does not, however, give media businesses any additional constitutional rights beyond what nonprofessional speakers have.

Freedom of petition protects the right to communicate with government officials. This includes lobbying government officials and petitioning the courts by filing lawsuits, unless the court concludes that the lawsuit clearly lacks any legal basis.

Excerpt from:
First Amendment | Contents & Supreme Court Interpretations ...