I made the decision about 10 years ago: I would stay here, in the Triad, and dedicate the rest of my career to local news. I stopped looking for gigs outside this market, stopped pitching longform freelance pieces to the magazine market, stopped pretending I could do anything else with my career outside the news business.

Why, you ask, would I do such a thing?

Because I believe reporting can save the world. And I go where Im needed.

Its true that reporting can save the world thats why freedom of the press is the very first amendment in our Bill of Rights. Journalism, done ethically and responsibly, literally heightens a readers awareness. As for undermining despots and combatting injustice: The facts, written down and disseminated, make a more potent weapon than any firearm.

I believe this.

And I go where Im needed. Its why I left New York, where there are thousands of guys like me. I came to realize it was why I settled here, in Greensboro, where the mediascape in 2000 was a dreary and provincial visage: no altweekly, no independent media, not even a monthly city magazine.

I found out very quickly that I could make a real difference here, as opposed to pitching my stories into the great maw of freelance work and moving on like a hired gun.

More: Local news is the best news. Its the most underserved there are more print reporters covering the White House than there are at the Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point newspapers combined. Local news affects your life a lot more than anything you will see on the Today show.

And like a lot of things that are important to the functioning of society, theres no money in it.

Triad City Beat is a free paper and it always will be. And we are able to do a lot with the small bit of advertising we are able to sell. But its never enough.

And so we created the First Amendment Society, a way for readers to donate to our enterprise, help keep our journalists paid and help keep the news free for those who dont have a few extra dollars to send our way.

Youll be seeing and hearing more about it in our pages, on our site, in our emails and on our social media properties. But for now its enough to say that the FAS is for people who believe in the power of reporting, like me.

Continue reading here:

EDITORS NOTEBOOK: The TCB First Amendment Society: Reporting can save the world! - Triad City Beat

A coalition of the nations largest media companies and news organizations has filed a legal brief in support of Stephen K. Bannon, asking a federal court not to bar him from publicly releasing documents related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

As part of a contempt of Congress case against him, the government is seeking to prevent Mr. Bannon from releasing thousands of pages of documents he has access to. The coalition which includes ABC, CBS, CNN, Dow Jones, NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post filed the brief on Tuesday, arguing that the governments proposed order would violate the First Amendment.

Mr. Bannon, a onetime adviser to former President Donald J. Trump, was indicted by a federal grand jury in November and charged with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with subpoenas to testify and to provide documents for the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 mob attack. He has pleaded not guilty.

As part of the discovery process, Mr. Bannons lawyers have gained access to more than 1,000 pages of documents, including transcripts of witness testimony and grand-jury exhibits. In a Nov. 17 filing, the Justice Department asked that a protective order be put in place to bar Mr. Bannon from making any of the documents public.

In a subsequent filing it noted that Mr. Bannon had indicated he intended to release documents to make extrajudicial arguments about the merits of the case pending against him and the validity of the governments decision to seek an indictment. Federal prosecutors also pointed to remarks that Mr. Bannon made at a news conference after his first court hearing, including: Were going to go on the offense on this.

It is unusual for Mr. Bannon and major news organizations to fall on the same side of an issue. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. Bannon has frequently denigrated established news media outlets.

But the coalition argued that the release of documents by Mr. Bannon was in the public interest.

The public has an overwhelming interest in the facts, circumstances and causes of the Jan. 6 riot, the coalition said in its brief. Bannon has been indicted in an investigation of the riot and has demonstrated his desire to communicate with the press and public about the governments case against him.

News of the legal brief was reported earlier by The Daily Mail.

Here is the original post:

Major news outlets side with Steve Bannon on one part of his legal fight. - The New York Times

The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set newsroom policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or onbangordailynews.com.

Freedom of religion. Freedom of the press. Two of Americas most cherished constitutional rights enshrined in the First Amendment, protecting them from political interference.

Lets add a healthy dose of government involvement.

That is what is presently percolating in Washington. This coming week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argumentsabout Maines so-called Blaine Amendment. Meanwhile, the Democrats Build Back Better bill proposes a $1.7 billion tax creditfor local news outlets.

The Blaine Amendments are a vestige of a bigoted time in our nations history. Their inspiration, Maines own James G. Blaine, was Speaker of the House in Washington, a U.S. senator, secretary of state and failed presidential candidate.

The laws passed in numerous states prohibited the expenditure of government funds on any religious educational institution. They arose during a time of heated anti-Catholicism and survive on the books today.

That is why they are in court.

Maine has some unique aspects compared with other states in the Union. We have a tradition of town academies, which are private institutions to which towns pay tuition in lieu of providing a high school. Think Maine Central Institute in Pittsfield or Thornton Academy in Saco.

Other municipalities are school choice towns. They do not have schools of their own, so they let families choose where their students can go. For example, Raymond is one. Ninth graders from that town could attend Windham, or Waynflete, or Westbrook.

But they could not go to Catholic schools like St. Dominics or Cheverus (full disclosure: Im a class of 02 graduate and now serve on the board of trustees). Because of Maines Blaine Amendment.

Turn to the other part of the First Amendment: freedom of the press.

It is no secret that local news outlets are facing dire financial straits. The revenue streams of newspapers most notably print advertising have been upended by the internet. However, journalists, administrative staff and others who work for them still (rightly) want to be paid. Making it all work is a challenge.

That is why Democrats have included local news tax credits in the Build Back Better bill.

If passed, it would be a massive change in the fabric of our nation. After all, the entire reason freedom of the press is enshrined in the Constitution is to empower news organizations to hold the government accountable, even if they fail miserably, like the CNN-Chris Cuomo debacle. It is hard for a journalist to ask tough questions when their paycheck relies on tax credits.

Further, the IRS has inappropriately targeted disfavored groups in the past. If a journalist hits a little too close to home, it isnt hard to imagine their employer being randomly selected for an invasive audit.

Both the Blaine Amendment and Build Back Better deal with government policy directly impacting the funding of organizations that are constitutionally protected from government interference.

In the case of the Blaine Amendment, religious schools are singled out for a prohibition on fundsthat are otherwise generally-available to other private schools.

With the local news tax credits, news organizations are singled out for special, positive treatment from the taxman.

It is probably time for the Blaine Amendments to be removed from the books. Government cannot discriminate against religion. And as long as dollars are permitted to flow to private schools from a school choice town, they should flow equally at the students election.

The local news tax credits are a bit different. News organizations are businesses, and they should participate in generally available business programs. But having Washington kite checks changes the dynamic precipitously.

So instead of tax credits, Mainers who value local news like the august Bangor Daily News should show that value with a subscription. And give reporters the ability to keep a close eye on Augusta. There is a lot going on; some of it is even worth hearing about.

Thank goodness for the First Amendment.

More articles from the BDN

Read more here:

Freedom of religion, and the press, in the spotlight in Washington - Bangor Daily News

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo conceded in March, 2021 that he could not, ethically, cover the sexual harassment allegations against his brother, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The family ties were simply too strong for him to do so independently.

But afterwards, Chris provided behind-the-scenes counsel to his brother and his brothers team. By August, 2021, when Andrew resigned in the wake of the scandal, there were calls for Chris to step down from his job as well because the New York attorney generals initial report revealed that he had helped draft a statement for his brother in February. As the adage has it, no one can serve two masters. The CNN anchor who should have been serving the public was secretly putting family loyalty first by helping his brother navigate a political and public relations disaster.

And now CNN has fired Cuomo. The firing happened on Dec. 4, less than a week after the attorney generals office released pages of transcripts, exhibits and videos from its investigation into sexual harassment allegations against Andrew Cuomo. The documents detailed the extensive help Chris Cuomo had been providing to his brother for months.

Viewers of CNN would have known about the cozy familial relationship between the two. In 2020, when Andrew Cuomo was still governor of New York, Chris teamed up with his brother to banter on the cable network about how the state was handling the pandemic. The segments were wildly popular.

Although they raised eyebrows in media ethics circles because Chris Cuomo appeared to be violating fundamental norms of journalistic independence. CNN justified its exception to a conflict of interest rule imposed since 2013 prohibiting the anchor from covering his brother, stating, Chris speaking with his brother about the challenges of what millions of American families were struggling with was of significant human interest.

And, incidentally, the banter was great for ratings. But the sexual harassment scandal that erupted in late 2020 put an end to all that.

But it did not end the behind-the-scenes conflict.

As Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel former journalists and now ethics scholars and media watchdogs have written, [Journalists] must strive to put the public interest and the truth above their own self-interest or assumptions.

Journalists fundamental role in democracy is to hold those in power, especially those in government, accountable. But if they have close relationships with those in power, their independence, or at least the perception of it, can be compromised. Independence coupled with accountability and transparency underpin the publics trust in journalists.

But goodwill towards Chris Cuomo, who the Washington Post reported was known for his intense loyalty to the network, its employees and their families, along with the unwavering support of CNN President Jeff Zucker, helped Cuomo keep his job.

He stayed in it until the Nov. 29 document dump disclosed just how closely the CNN anchor had helped his brother Andrews team frame and mount a defense to the accusations. Among the offers Chris made: he would work his own journalistic sources to investigate the credibility of the women who alleged harassment or assault.

At that point, CNN suspended Cuomo indefinitely.

When Chris admitted to us that he had offered advice to his brothers staff, he broke our rules and we acknowledged that publicly, CNN said in a statement. But we also appreciated the unique position he was in and understood his need to put family first and job second.

Cuomos firing followed four days later.

Was it ethical for the anchor to continue to advise his brother while representing to his viewers that he was keeping his relationship at arms length? Should he even have participated in what a Donald Trump campaign spokesman called the Cuomo Brothers Comedy Hour at the beginning of the pandemic?

Journalists associations have developed ethical codes and guidelines that address this situation.

One of the oldest and best known is the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). News organizations also have their own ethics rules and post them online so that the public can read them. Television networks frequently assign ethics enforcement to their Standards and Practices departments.

These codes set out the ethical standards for a news operation.

But the word code is a misnomer. Although news organizations are free to enforce their provisions on their own staff, they are not intended to create legal obligations to anyone else, as with licensed professions such as law and medicine. The SPJ Code is explicit about this, emphasizing that its code is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable.

It does, however, emphasize that conflicts of interest must be avoided, or at the very least, disclosed, to maintain independence and transparency.

CNN has acknowledged that Chris Cuomo broke our rules. But the rules arent posted on CNNs website. In fact, CNN has fought to keep them secret.

In August, the Washington Post quoted from a leaked copy of the networks News Standards & Practices Policy Guide, reporting that the document mandates that CNN employees should avoid any real obligation or appearance of any obligation to any interest that he/she may be covering or reporting on, and should avoid conflicts between personal interests and the interest of the company or even the appearance of such conflicts.

That sounds about right, but did CNN enforce those rules with Chris Cuomo? How could the anchor avoid conflicts of interest while pitching softball questions to his brother during the pandemic, much less by providing behind-the-scenes advice on how to deal with the sexual harassment scandal?

Many media commentators say that he couldnt, and now, CNN seems to agree.

Was it unrealistic to expect the Cuomo brothers not to confer in times of crisis? Some news consumers think so, as reader comments on a Nov. 30 New York Times story contended: One of the biggest draws to CNN is Chris Cuomo & his personalized brotherly banter & friendship with Don Lemon. He reflects whats right in America. Family & Loyalty.

Those readers are right that it is a question of loyalty. But they are answering the question differently than many journalists would.

Kovach and Rosenstiel have written that journalists first loyalty is to citizens, and in their book The Elements of Journalism call it an implied covenant with the audience.

As columnist Margaret Sullivan argued in the Washington Post, You dont abuse your position in journalism whether at a weekly newspaper or a major network for personal or familial gain.

Conflicts of interest violate that covenant and undermine public confidence in media independence. Some conflicts of interest are such a problem that no amount of disclosure or disclaimers can cure them. CNN has apparently concluded that Chris Cuomos is one of them.

View post:

How dual loyalties created an ethics problem for Chris Cuomo and CNN - The Conversation AU

The helmet Aaron Cantu was wearing when he was hit by an officer's flash-bang grenade in 2018. Aaron Cantu

Cantu was one of hundreds of Portlanders who met in downtown Portland on August 4, 2018 to protest a rally organized by Patriot Prayer, a right-wing group based in Vancouver, Washington. It was during this demonstration that officers with the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) chose to fire "less-lethal" munitions into a crowd of more than 50 counter-protesters gathered near SW Columbia and Naito.

Cantu was running in the opposite direction of the police when an officer's flash-bang grenade lodged itself into his skull. Cantu was wearing a bike helmet at the time, but the munition was powerful enough to blaze through his helmet and cut into his head. According to the lawsuit Cantu filed against the city, Cantu could have died from the impact if he wasn't wearing the helmet.

Cantu suffered a traumatic brain injury from the incident. Cantu continued to suffer from dizziness, tinnitus, and emotional trauma more than a year after being injured, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed in 2019 on behalf of three protesters injured during the August 4 demonstration, including Cantu. Plaintiff James Mattox, who was hit by an officer's rubber bullet during the event, has already settled with the city, collecting $22,882 in May 2020. Plaintiff Tracey Molina, however, is still actively engaged in the litigation. The lawsuit is temporarily on hold while Molina heads to trial to face federal criminal charges for not following the orders of a federal officer while protesting outside of Portland's Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in May 2021.

Another demonstrator filed a separate lawsuit against the PPB for her injuries during the August 4 clash. Michelle Fawcett was struck by a fiery munition shot by an officer into the crowd, leaving her with searing third-degree chemical burns on her arm and chest. In September 2021, Fawcett agreed to settle the case.

Cantu's settlement payment of $125,000 is the largest received by any August 4 demonstrator who sued PPB. Cantu's co-plaintiff Mattox received $22,000 from the city last year, while Fawcett collected a $50,000 payout. The public dollars to cover the costs come from the citys insurance and claims fund which, in the current fiscal year, has a budget just over $46 million.

Cantu's legal counsel is expected to give testimony during the Wednesday council meeting. Follow the meeting, which begins at 9:30 am, here.

Read more here:

City Council to Pay $125000 to Protester Injured by Police in 2018 - The Portland Mercury