Held on the weekend of April 18 and 19, the Silha Center’s National Media Ethics and Law Conference drew more than 100 leaders in media law and ethics to Minneapolis to discuss the applicability of traditional legal and ethical principles to new media and new ethical climates.

Prof. Jerome Barron of George Washington University opened the first session on new technology and law with a question heard in all sessions: What standard of review should courts apply to Internet regulation? A longtime advocate of public access to media, Prof. Barron cautioned that the much-favored print media standard "subordinates all other First Amendment interests to the interest of the owner" of the communications medium.

Attorney Ann Kappler of Jenner and Block’s Washington, D.C., office responded that even the print media standard would be seen as "a comedown" to many of her Internet clients, who take the words "Congress shall make no law" literally. "I spend a lot of my time advising my clients that that’s not really what the First Amendment means in practice," Ms. Kappler said. She was the first to issue a warning that many would echo: Unless the industry develops a voluntary response to such issues as regulating sexually oriented speech, government would impose regulation. Both Ms. Kappler and Robert Trager of the University of Colorado pointed to challenges posed by cross-border regulation. Concentrating on Australia as an example, Prof. Trager said that the Internet is making nations that lack constitutional protection of free expression reexamine their traditions.

Claiming that he was "not a ‘90s kind of guy, unless you mean a 1790s kind of guy," Donald Pember of the University of Washington said that he refused to use e-mail, calling it an "insecure" and "dysfunctional" mode of communication. Nonetheless, Prof. Pember argued that the Internet raises the possibility that for the first time, ordinary citizens may be able to exercise their First Amendment rights with the same protections that journalists enjoy – as, he argued, the framers of the First Amendment intended.

University of Minnesota President Mark Yudof, a law professor himself, opened discussion with a hypothetical that highlighted the confusion and challenges of media-specific approaches: a reporter who defamed others in several media might face different sanctions in each.

The luncheon speaker on Saturday was Michael Wilens, a founding member of the Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link (WELL) who is now executive vice president and chief technology officer for the West Group. Mr. Wilens elaborated themes of the earlier session, adding that the cost of being a global publisher was now only the $30 per month required for an Internet account that could support web pages. Mr. Wilens expressed concern about the trend toward narrowcasting, stating that though customized content is designed to help the customer, "I’m becoming a narrower and narrower person as a result of narrowcasting." Mr. Wilens wondered if the Internet was an ungovernable system. He seemed sanguine about the possibilities of generating revenues from database services in cyberspace, saying that West views the Internet as offering low-volume, high-profit opportunities in addition to the high-volume, low-profit opportunities that most commentators have identified.

The Saturday afternoon session, moderated by Theodore Glasser of Stanford University, was on "Convergence of Legal and Ethical Issues." Drawing on the works of Charles Taylor and Michael Walzer, Clifford Christians of the University of Illinois distinguished two liberalisms. "Liberalism one," most often upheld by U.S. courts, is a "procedural liberalism" of autonomous individuals and individual rights. "Liberalism two" is "committed to the flourishing of particular cultures and beliefs." Prof. Christians suggested that Americans must face up to the charge that a liberalism of rights is not neutral but expresses politically only one range of cultures."

Timothy Gleason, dean of the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication, warned of what he and others have called the "ideology of free speech" that precludes debate on its assumptions, and reminded listeners that celebrated media defense was "big business." Prof. Gleason suggested that two conflicting principles were at stake in many difficult media ethics cases: First Amendment protections of journalistic process clashed with "a view of the First Amendment as a license to act, regardless of the consequences to the democratic process." Deni Elliott, director of the University of Montana’s Practical Ethics Center, suggested that media acknowledge their roles as players in their stories and reexamine their own visions of press roles when facing such difficult decisions.

Louis Hodges, Knight Professor of Journalism Ethics at Washington & Lee University, sounded themes that shaped debate for the remainder of the conference, asserting that "ethics always trumps law" and expressing concern that too many "accept the absurd and destructive notion that ‘if it’s not illegal, it’s okay to do it." Prof. Hodges raised the question of whether punitive damages should be assessed against media defendants and asserted that they should not.

Discussion at Sunday’s concluding session on newsgathering, moderated by James Goodale of Debevoise and Plimpton, returned again to the ongoing Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC litigation. In a 1996 decision now on appeal, the Food Lion grocery chain obtained punitive damages against ABC for a PrimeTime Live newscast using hidden camera footage filmed by ABC producers who falsified employment applications to get jobs at Food Lion.

John Borger of the Minneapolis law firm Faegre & Benson framed the issues at stake in such cases – whether "non-content-based" torts such as trespass and fraud should, like the "content-based" tort of libel, be scrutinized more carefully when perpetrated by media defendants. He said there are three possible approaches: a strict approach to the elements of the tort regardless of the defendant, a balancing approach, and his preferred approach – not assessing damages against media defendants.

Joann Byrd, editorial page editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, advocated that journalists themselves use a balancing approach – a balancing of two criteria when deciding when to break the law. She suggested that journalists consider both "whether the value of the information excuses ignoring the law" and "whether we have made a good-faith effort to get the information in the lawful way first."

John Walsh of Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft, a plaintiff’s lawyer in many First Amendment cases, observed that "First Amendment protection is not absolute," and pointed to many cases that showed the limits of those protections. Despite many clear differences with others on the panel and in the audience, Mr. Walsh agreed with others when he said, "In the last analysis, observation of ethical guidelines and compliance with traditional journalism standards may provide the media with more protection than the First Amendment." After donning a magician’s hat and divining that El Nino was to blame for "overheated" news coverage, James Naughton, president of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, stated a similar theme: If journalists constantly privileged news judgment, even under the heaviest deadline pressure and in the heat of sweeps, fewer cases would end up in court.

Prof Gillmor was present at all the conference sessions, and several panelists acknowledged their debt to his thinking and writing. Prof. Gillmor had promised himself to resist asking questions at the conference sessions, and he only broke that promise once, issuing Prof. Hodges a challenge familiar to any student of Prof. Gillmor’s: to be Lon Fuller to his H.L.A. Hart. As any student of Dr. Gillmor’s might attest, it was perhaps the vigorous engagement of hard cases at the conference sessions that honored the retiring Silha professor as well as any tribute.

MARK CENITE

SIMC Graduate Student

A warning to aspiring young journalists who later become distinguished mass communication law scholars: A feature newspaper story that you write at age 23 could come back to haunt you 47 years later.

That’s what retiring University of Minnesota Professor Donald M. Gillmor found out during a memory-filled, black-tie banquet "roasf’ in his honor during the National Media Ethics and Law Conference, on Saturday, April 19, in Minneapolis. About 150 family, friends, attorneys, colleagues, journalists, alumni, and former students gathered to honor the award-winning Silha Professor of Media and Ethics and Law, who is retiring in June after 45 years of teaching, primarily at the University’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

A native of Fort Frances, Ontario, Dr. Gillmor began his journalism career in 1950, at the Winnipeg Free Press, after earning his bachelor’s degree at the University of Manitoba. He later completed his masters and doctoral degrees at Minnesota, before joining the faculty in 1965, after teaching at the University of North Dakota. His book, Mass Communication Law: Cases and Comment, which he co-authored with Jerome Barron and Todd Simon, recently published in sixth edition, is considered the field’s classic textbook.

But instead of something from his bookshelf full of scholarly work, a surprised Prof. Gillmor saw his feature story from the October 18, 1951, edition of the Winnipeg Free-Press appear on an overhead screen. The banquet’s roastmaster, William A. Babcock, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law, began the evening’s fun by inviting Gillmor’s students to edit their former professor’s copy. There were redundancies, cliches, even a bad lead paragraph, Dr. Babcock joked, wielding his red pen over the copy.

"But I was only 23 then!" Prof. Gillmor cried out, rising in mock protest to the lighthearted destruction of his early journalistic prose. The scholar later admitted that the best part of the story about a Ukrainian Canadian’s dream about Coronation Day was the "terrific" photograph that didn’t get printed.

Also displayed near the front of the room was a blow-up poster of a 1973 Esquire parody of the National Enquirer, which named Prof. Gillmor as one of the nation’s sexiest college professors.

More than 20 speakers accepted Prot Babcock’s invitation to honor Dr. Gillmor with touching, sometimes emotional remembrances of his dedicated teaching, remarkable scholarship, and devoted friendship.

Prof. Gillmor’s final master’s degree student, Russian native Irina Dmitrieva, shared how Prof. Gillmor would often mix touching personal stories with his scholarly lessons. She and her husband, SMJC graduate student Gregory Borchard, met last fall in a Gillmor class.

"He would tell stories about how he and [his wife] Sophie met," Ms. Dmitrieva said. "On his desk there was this beautiful photograph of her. Behind this wise and clever man there has been this wise and clever woman all these years."

Unable to attend the banquet, Dr. Gillmor’s youngest brother, Alan, a professor of music at Carleton University, sent a touching letter read by Stuart Adam, a Carlton vice-president. In remembering his brother in "this warm and bittersweet moment," the younger Gillmor praised his brother’s constant encouragement, even though he admitted "losing many arguments over the years."

"You were there for me, refreshing my spirit by word and deed and giving me the permission to excel," the letter stated. "In this warm and bittersweet moment, you are surrounded by people whose lives you have touched."

Among the many stories shared was one from Herb Terry, Prof. Gillmor’s one-time student and later co-author with Jerome Barron and Todd Simon. As a graduate student, Prof. Terry once "boldly corrected" Dr. Gillmor after a lecture that John Marshall was not the first chief justice of the United States.

A few years later, when Prof. Barron was arguing the case of Miami Herald Publishing v. Tornillo before the Supreme Court, he could not even get a chamber seat ticket for his wife to attend the oral arguments. The enterprising Dr. Terry wrote to fellow Minnesotan Chief Justice Warren Burger and obtained two tickets. The former student was "so proud" to take Prof. Gillmor to the court, especially since the ticket envelope was marked "Herbert Terry and guest."

Witchita State University Professor Vernon Keel stated he "would have paid for a copy of the Winnipeg Free Press" as a Gillmor student at the University of North Dakota, then a graduate student at Minnesota, nearly four decades ago.

Fellow School of Journalism and Mass Communication (SJMC) faculty member Daniel Wackman thanked Prof. Gillmor for welcoming him and his wife, Kathy, into the community some 27 years ago.

"Kathy and I are in a sense Don’s kids," remarked Wackman, who was once "his boss" as SJMC’s director. "Don and Sophie took us in and made us a part of the community."

Always having his door open for students, fellow faculty and media professionals, Dr. Gillmor was "amazing" in his passion and dedication. And as a student in Prof. Gillmor’s final class wrote, "The only thing to do with Don Gillmor would be to clone him," Wackman said.

Steven Rosenstone, dean of the College of Liberal Arts, agreed that "the idea of cloning seems like a good idea," since Prof. Gillmor is "one of the few giants" among the college’s 500 professors. In announcing the beginning of a national search for a new Silha Professor, Dean Rosenstone also praised Prof. Gillmor’s recent leadership in the SJMC’s crusade for state funding for new media technology.

"The sense of camaraderie in the Journalism School created by Don over the past eight months made a new chapter possible in the life of the Journalism School," Rosenstone stated.

Joining other media scholars present, Prof. Barron, Dr. Gillmor’s longtime co-author, extolled his colleague’s stature in First Amendment scholarship. They first met when Dr. Gillmor sat in on Prof. Barron’s class at the University of North Dakota in 1969. When West Publishing asked Prof. Gillmor to write a textbook on mass communication law, he insisted that Prof. Barron be his co-author. At the banquet, attorney James Goodale admitted that he "stole" the book’s table of contents for the "principle basis" for law seminars at the American Practising Law Institute.

"His views on the First Amendment differ from mine at times," Prof. Barron noted. "He believes these problems are resolved by relying on the ethical standards of working journalists. I didn’t always agree, but I respected him as a scholar. He’s contributed to the education of students, journalists, and my own.

"It’s amazing that two people with such diverse views on the press would get along. That shows his tolerance and mine too. It gives our work a tension but a good one. Even though I think he sometimes lives in error, I believe in his passion. He’s a great scholar, a great colleague and a great friend – a pleasure to celebrate."

Otto Silha, principal benefactor of the Silha Center with his wife, Helen, recalled first meeting Prof. Gillmor and being impressed with "his optimistic idea" for establishing such a center for the study of media ethics and law.

"Almost everyone I meet here today is either a student, a disciple or a mentoree of Don Gillmor," Mr. Silha said. "He told me at breakfast this morning that he was going to keep his gradebooks because he wants to remember the names."

In his humorous roast, Sanford University Professor Ted Glasser, former Silha Center associate director, used an impressive slide collection of Gillmor memos, clippings, and photographs to reflect on his remarkable career. Prof. Glasser also recounted Dr. Gillmor’s unusual "fetish" for trapping squirrels on his property, then setting them free elsewhere.

As a final token of appreciation, the Gillmors were presented with several gifts, including a framed map of their beloved Rainy Lake in Northern Minnesota.

In thanking those gathered and those who could not attend for their many wishes, Prof. Gillmor first made "just a few corrections" about some of the stories told, then particularly expressed his gratitude to his wife, his family, his co-authors, students, and others.

"This is probably the last time I’ll see my friends, my students, my family, all in one place. That’s a sad thought, but it makes a wonderful occasion. I just want to say how much I owe to all of you...

"I just want to say how much Sophie and I appreciate you being here tonight. This is a very memorable evening for me. We love you all. We thank you so very much.

"And Bill [Babcock], this was your idea. I damned you for it, but I love you for it."

JACK BRESLIN

SJMC Graduate Student and Bulletin Editor

It is with a deep sense of loss that I take my leave of a journalism program that I have admired and been a part of, spiritually or physically, since I came to Minnesota as a foreign graduate student in 1949. I am also saying goodbye to a Center that has kept the mind alive and the heart beating with excitement since 1984.

When I think of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law, and the unflagging support and genuine interest shown it by the Silhas (Otto, Helen, Steve, and Alice), what first comes to mind are all of those marvelous graduate students – Silha Fellows we call them. It began with Patricia Dooley and today comes down to Jenny Lambe and Genelle Belmas, and everyone in between – Dave Allen, Beth Blanks Hindman, Bob Jensen, Sandra Braman, Sherrie Wilson, Victoria Smith Holden, Anne Jett, Patricia Bastian and Erik Ugland. They have been the heart and soul of the Center. Those with Ph.D.s in hand now occupy major academic positions around the country.

I also think of exciting Silha Forums that grappled with the urgent everyday issues of law and ethics; Silha Lectures presented by world-class people; our success in getting the National News Council archive; the internationally distributed journal, Media Ethics, that we co-founded with Emerson College in Boston; the newsletter, Bulletin, brought to life by Bill Babcock, my successor as director. Bill has also brought to life the study of media ethics in the classroom and seminar. I think of our first conference, co-sponsored with the Gannett Center for Media Studies at Columbia University, and masterminded by our former student and faculty member, Ev Dennis, founding father of what would become the Freedom Forum. I think also of the intellectually provocative Ted Glasser, my founding partner, gone to Stanford, and the remarkable Kathleen Paul, the administrator who gave the Center its sense of community. Not to be forgotten, our publications; my works on media law and, with Ted and Ev, our work on media accountability and, now, continuing along those lines, Bill’s study of media ethics as reflected in the work of the Minnesota News Council. And thanks to two School of Journalism and Mass Communication (SJMC) directors who span the period of the Center’s growth: Jerry Kline, who created it, and Dan Wackman, who sustained it.

SJMC is on the edge of a new era. In April its financial, building and faculty goals were realized by the Minnesota Legislature after a remarkable public relations campaign by its students and faculty engineered and coordinated with incredible skill by the School’s interim director Al Tims. The Center will be one of the many beneficiaries of this long-delayed largesse. A new faculty will enrich the School’s tradition of constitutional and media law studies, and ethics studies will proliferate.

Wall Street has been kind to the original gift of the Silhas. More can be done and will be done to establish the Center as an even more distinguished resource for scholarship and professional outreach.

What will I do for excitement after June 15 – the excitement of students, colleagues, ideas, papers, books, articles, projects, panels, conferences, speeches, invitations, and yes, even meetings where facts and opinions were exchanged, defended, and debated? New eras will require new people. I will remain at a distance. In fact I will disappear into a world of music, art, and literature too long neglected, at least after my final graduate student has earned his or her degree. The Silha Center now has a momentum that will propel it into the new century. Of that I have no doubt.

DONALD GILLMOR

Silha Professor

Patterson, Philip and Lee Wilkins (eds.) (1998).

Media Ethics: Issues and Cases (3rd ed.)

New York: McGraw-Hill. 356 pp., $15.60.

No book yet published could be a "stand-alone" media ethics volume. There are simply too many issues and concepts for one publication to encompass and still be an affordable and readable assignment for an undergraduate class. Media Ethics is no exception; however, it comes closer than many others to being that "stand-alone" volume.

The editors are quite clear in the Preface about what they chose to include. While they do not include ethics codes (because they are only useful for the "easy" cases), media-bashing, or conclusions ("No one has yet written the conclusive chapter to the ethical dilemmas of the media..."), they have set out a neatly divided set of case studies and essays that address many of the "big" ethical dilemmas facing today’s mass media. There are the fairly common dilemmas of keeping promises and seeking truth. Additionally, there are also sections on persuasion ethics – an area too often overlooked in general journalism ethics texts - and on cyber-ethics – an area that will undoubtedly become more and more important.

The book contains "a diverse, up-to-date, and classroom-tested compilation of cases in media ethics." There is an introductory chapter that includes brief descriptions of some of the classic ethical decision-making models (Aristotle, Kant, Mill), and the chapters following include a number of case studies grouped into broad categories such as "Loyalty" and "Privacy." In general, the case studies are followed by issues for discussion labeled "Micro," "Middle-Range," and "Macro" (with questions ranging from case- specific to big-picture). Cases include questions about the media’s handling of Richard Jewell after the Olympic Park bombing and the New Orleans Times-Picayune’s coverage of David Duke, a controversial gubernatorial candidate. However, the cases are not uniformly structured or of similar length or complexity. A case on coverage of the Oklahoma City bombing, for example, is an excerpt of a book about the experience without questions for reflection at the end.

The elimination of ethics codes is unfortunate; many organizations have such codes, and a student who did not know about them or how to use them would be ill-prepared. However, this is a minor criticism. The timeliness of the case studies coupled with a readable tone will make this book a welcome addition to any media ethics library.

GENELLE BELMAS

1997-98 Silha Research Fellow