Journalists as Citizens Questions

User Generated

PnegreG

Humanities

Description


1. Ibsen, Henrik. An Enemy of the People (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (play) Gutenberg version. You may choose which format to read it in, but you must read the entire play.

2. Whittle, Stephen. "Journalists as CitizensPreview the document." British Journalism Review 15.4(2005): 54-57. (British, click on hyperlink, 4 pages)

3. Junes, RonNell Andersen and Lisa Grow Sun. "Enemy Construction and the Press.Preview the document" Utah Law Faculty Scholarship 17 http://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship/17 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (60 pages--must read all. Click on hyperlink. It mentions President Trump, but also, Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, and Obama and their treatment of the press)

Questions

"Journalists as Citizens"

1.a This article was written and published in England during the George W. Bush administration (2001-2008). Question: Cut and paste a quote from the article that indicates one specific legal development involving journalists in the United States Stephen Whittle finds to be especially troubling. GIVE THE PAGE # (4 pts)

1.b Question: Explain how Whittle connects what is going on in the US to similar threats faced by British journalists. What larger principle about journalism does he fear is under attack? Be specific and include a quote to support your claim, indicating the PAGE # (6 pts)

"Journalists as Citizens"

2.a Question: Cut and paste the statement in which Whittle explains the BBC's decision on how to react to the Government's use of the Terrorism Act against them for airing the interview with Abu Uzair and Abu Izzadeen on August 1, 2005? (4 pts)

2.b Question: In 2 sentences, explain what YOU would have done if you were the head of the BBC news decision faced with a similar circumstances and explain WHY (the rationale) you would have acted that way. (6 pts)

“An Enemy of the People”

3. Consider the following exchange from Act 1 Scene 1 in the play which demonstrates the literary device we call foreshadowing (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.:

Hovstad, editor of the "People's Messenger."

Dr. Thomas Stockmann, Medical Officer of the Municipal Baths.

Peter Stockmann (the Doctor's elder brother), Mayor of the

Town and Chief Constable, Chairman of the Baths' Committee, etc.

Peter Stockmann. It looks very promising. Inquiries about apartments and that sort of thing are reaching us, every day.

Hovstad. Well, the doctor's article will come in very suitably.

Peter Stockmann. Has he been writing something just lately?

Hovstad. This is something he wrote in the winter; a recommendation of the Baths—an account of the excellent sanitary conditions here. But I held the article over, temporarily.

Peter Stockmann. Ah,—some little difficulty about it, I suppose?

Hovstad. No, not at all; I thought it would be better to wait until the spring, because it is just at this time that people begin to think seriously about their summer quarters.

Peter Stockmann. Quite right; you were perfectly right, Mr. Hovstad.

Hovstad. Yes, Thomas is really indefatigable when it is a question of the Baths.

Peter Stockmann. Well remember, he is the Medical Officer to the Baths.

Question: Considering this exchange and no other information about the plot, explain whether you find Hovstad’s actions as editor of the newspaper, his decision to delay publication of Dr. Thomas Stockman’s article until Spring in order to promote tourism to the Baths, to be professionally defensible or not and WHY that is. (8 pts)

Include a direct quotation of at least one line from this scene of the play in support of your position. (2 pts)

"Enemy Construction and the Press"

4. Question: According to Jones’ and Sun’s characterizations of German philosopher Carl Schmitt, what are the two “interrelated powers” Schmitt claims the sovereign (or a nation’s highest ruler) has? Cite a page # where you found these in the text. (4 pts)

“Enemy Construction and the Press”

5. Question: List 3 specific acts carried out by the Trump campaign and/or administration that Jones and Sun include as examples of “rhetorical framing of the press” as an enemy? Include page #s of where you found these in the text. (6 pts)

“Enemy Construction and the Press”

6. Question: Find an example where Jones and Sun explain how the enemy construction of the press engages in an “us” vs “them” discussion where the press is listed as “other”. Paste that quote here and cite a page # where you found this in the text. (4 pts)

“Enemy Construction and the Press”

7.Question: Which president do Jones and Sun say prosecuted more journalists “than all previous presidents combined”? Cite a page # where you found this in the text. (2 pts)

“Enemy Construction and the Press”

8. Question: Which 20th century president comes closest to sharing president Trump’s dislike of the press according to Jones and Sun? Cite the page # where you found this in the text. (2 pts)

“Enemy Construction and the Press”

9. Question: How do Jones and Sun contrast and distinguish the way in which the answer to #8 and president Trump discuss the press differently in public? Cite the page # where you found this in the text. (2 pts)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Journalists as citizens Stephen Whittle  In the previous British Journalism Review, the editorial began to set out some of the challenges for journalism posed by the bomb attacks on London in July. As this issue went to press, the BBC found itself between a rock and a hard place, caught in the middle of what it regards as a fundamental journalistic principle and the requirements of the Terrorism Act. The outcome is unclear as yet, but the issue goes to the heart of Joseph Pulitzer’s understanding of the role of journalism. He wrote about it as a privilege: “...the privilege of moulding opinion, touching the hearts and appealing to the reason of hundreds of thousands every day. Here is the most fascinating of all professions... Every single day opens new doors for the journalist who holds the confidence of the community and has the capacity to address it”. Pulitzer saw journalists as having a passport that enables them to roam. To get to people wherever they are or in whatever condition they find themselves and to ask questions that are direct and to the point. Alongside that goes the function of acting as a check on the power of the State or other institutions by providing independent information on the activities of the powerful. So far, so familiar. But inherent in Pulitzer’s vision is the relationship between the journalist and the society in which he or she works. We have read and seen much of citizen journalists in recent months, but in the professional domain, at what point do the roles of citizen and journalist diverge? The gathering storms in Washington over the CIA-leak investigation have become a test of journalistic as well as political ethics. High-profile reporters are now being drawn in to testify against their source, raising some unprecedented issues. The New York Times has reported that if the Lewis Libby case comes to trial – Vice-President Cheney’s chief of staff and Karl ©Stephen Whittle; DOI: 10.1177/0956474805062192; [2005/12] 16:4; 54-57; http://bjr.sagepub.com Challenge for journalism Or, to return to terrorism, not too many people would want to argue the case for either indifference or even journalistic neutrality when it comes to the trauma and suffering caused by a bomb exploded on a bus or train, or in a crowded market place. But if the world has become an even deadlier place, the challenge for journalism goes deeper. The UK’s Terrorism Act (2000) covers not only people who may be involved in acts of terrorism anywhere in the world, but, in Section 19, also embraces journalists who discover things they might rather not know but which could, in the opinion of the authorities, be helpful to them. In these circumstances, it is hard to sustain arguments for the protection of sources. But beside the legal obligation, journalists have to weigh up the moral responsibility involved. What if the information is indeed true and something terrible but preventable happens? It is equally difficult when it comes to reporting groups or individuals who are taking their political or religious beliefs to the edge of legality and beyond. In one sense, we have been through all this in Northern Ireland. Careful judgments had to be made about when or whether to interview the IRA or other para-military groups. Even before Mrs Thatcher spoke of the British Journalism Review vol.16 no.4 december 2005 Rove, senior Presidential adviser, face possible indictments – the prosecution is likely to use testimony by Tim Russert of NBC News, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, and Judith Miller of The New York Times to show that Libby lied to investigators. As the NY Times (and indeed William Rees Mogg in the London Times) have argued, such an unusual strategy puts the media in the position it fears most: becoming a de-facto investigative arm of the government. Such a strategy could also be risky – pitting the credibility of a government official against members of a profession whose ethics have also been under assault. This is a worrying development for journalists everywhere and again raises difficult questions about how and whether we should protect our sources, come what may. The prosecution in America seems to revolve around whether Libby told the truth to the special investigator, rather than the actual leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s name. Critics of the indictment claim that bringing charges on the basis of manufacturing political spin is a step too far. But there is a central issue of truth. Most political scandals in Britain have been as much about the cover-up as the original misdeed. In the end, perjury is not merely a technical offence, as has been suggested by one or two U.S. Senators.  British Journalism Review vol.16 no.4 december 2005  “oxygen of publicity”, news organisations had to think hard about talking to people their audiences found repugnant, weighing the public interest in knowing a little more of “the enemy” and what they wanted with the opprobrium of providing them with a “platform”. But if journalism is going to serve the public interest in understanding what is happening in the world and why, occasionally we will want to talk to people who might seek to explain or even explain away acts of terror. That does not mean we support the holders of those views. We simply report them. It is a key part of the media’s role in a free society to ensure that freedom of information means just that; that people are given the information they need to make sense of events for themselves and to evaluate the best response. On August 1, 2005, as part of its ongoing reporting into the London bombings and what lay behind them, Newsnight interviewed Abu Uzair and Abu Izzadeen of the radical Islamist sect Al Ghurabaa. In the interview, they both sought to justify the July 7 attacks. Abu Izzadeen said: “What I would say about those who do suicide operations, or martyrdom operations, they are completely praiseworthy.” Asked if he would go to the police if he knew another attack was being planned Abu Uzair said: “I would never go to the police… because I believe that to spy on Muslims is particularly not allowed at all”. Both statements express attitudes we might find disturbing, but they do not appear to breach the current Terrorism Act. They do not reveal any evidence of plots or caches or cells. But they do give an insight into the minds of British Islamists. We would argue that it is a matter of legitimate public interest. What happened after Newsnight was broadcast is instructive. The police went straight to a judge to get an order under the Terrorism Act, requiring the BBC to hand over not only the transmitted programme but the rushes, notes and “any other relevant material”. We were given no warning and no opportunity to put a contrary case, or to argue that there was no breach of the existing law. Indeed, given the Government’s proposals to extend the law to cover words that “glorify” terrorism, it would appear that it shares our view. Faced with a court order that had been sought behind our backs, we decided it would be wrong simply to hand over the material without any argument or attempt to limit the seizure to what was in the public domain. We await further developments. Clearly the BBC does not support terrorism, but there is a fundamental principle at stake. We have to be free to gather news and views to serve the British Journalism Review vol.16 no.4 december 2005 society of which we, too, are a part. If we are to continue to enjoy the confidence of the community Pulitzer wrote about, we cannot afford to be thought of as an extension of the police service or the intelligence agencies. We need people to talk to us. The public needs to have access to that information. The public interest is better served by our being able to report what is happening and get inside the minds of people. That becomes impossible if every step is dogged with the threat of police raids and seizures of journalistic material. Yes, we have responsibilities as citizens, but our responsibility is also to inform our fellow citizens on the nature of the arguments and threats of which they need to be aware. Stephen Whittle is Controller of BBC Editorial Policy. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: ENGLISH QUIZ

1

English Quiz

Affiliate Institution

Lecturer Name

Your Name

Date

ENGLISH QUIZ

2
English Quiz

4. Question: According to Jones’ and Sun’s characterizations of German philosopher Carl
Schmitt, what are the two “interrelated powers” Schmitt claims the sovereign (or a nation’s
highest ruler) has? Cite a page # where you found these in the text. (4 pts)
The power to choose and declare enemies of the state and the power to invoke a “state of
exception” in times of emergency, a realm which is outside ordinary norms and the
constraints of law (pg.39).

5. Question: List 3 specific acts carried out by the Trump campaign ...


Anonymous
Really helpful material, saved me a great deal of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags