Annette Buchanan

In 1966 I was the student managing editor of the University of Oregon Daily Emerald and I decided to run a story titled “Students Condone Marijuana use.” In it I wrote about seven students and their drug habits. Quickly after it ran, the police decided to get involved. They wanted to know names. Why would I give up my fellow classmates? That could not only ruin my reputation as a college students, but also as a reporter. To me, off the record stays off the record. In fact, as a student reporter, I should feel safe in my writing and not have to give up sources. As a reporter, I have the first amendment right and should not have to give up anything unwanted, right?
I had to go to court. I was fined $300, they pried it unwillingly out of my cold hands, and my case was appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, where the District Attorney had no sympathy for me. Me, a young budding reporter, how could they not have sympathy for me? I was trying to get more readers. This is a huge issue on my campus at the University of Oregon. Apparently the Oregon Constitution does anything but protect me and my reporter rights.
Luckily, for the reporters who follow in my footsteps, of making a scene and not backing down until they subpoena you into doing so, the Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a journalistic shiled law. We can only get in trouble as journalists, according to the Oregon Shield Law, if there is cause that a journalist has or is going to commit a crime, or if the defendant has a defense based on the content.
In March of 1971 my case was revisited by the Eugene Register-Guard by the prosecutor from my case, William Frye. He angrily said that I was “still being glamorized by the press.” And he argued that this new shield law gave the press “not a shield but a sword.” Frye is angered at me for losing my case. Also in this article Robert Notson, publisher of the Portland Oregonian was interviewed. “It is considered the gravest ethical breach for a journalist to violate a confidence,” Notson was quoted. Notson is right. I breached confidence. I was forced to breach confidence. I was told things, in secrecy, about drug users on my campus, an issue that I feel is quite prevalent, and I did not want to break the trust of those that I interviewed.
This has been a rough ride. I have been poked and prodded out of and into things that I did and didn’t want to do. I have paid the fine, I should be left alone. This is unethical for myself as a young journalist. I should not have to give personal information away if it is not harming anyone. These students chose to make terrible decisions, and I chose to report on that. If that means I should be interrogated, what is journalism becoming?

Whats too much?

The first obvious difference in the freedoms of medias is that a British operation, such as Telegraph, is that it is more apt to shed a light on American wrong doings than, say, New York Times would be. In America, fortunately, many journalists are allowed to write what they want and get away with quite a bit.

To Telegraph, celebrities constantly make news, even more so than in America. The royal family, although just figureheads now, make the covers of their magazines weekly.

The Kanye West stories bombarded the news. The story of his interrupting Taylor Swift at an award show was a hot topic all over newspapers, television stations, and Twitter. Quickly after, President Obama was recorded calling West a “jackass.” The President quickly corrects himself, saying that he has a lot on his plate, and should be cut some slack. Of course, TMZ – Americas most embarrassing news source – put out the recording on their website. Britain’s Telegraph newspaper brought up the ethics of reporting this quote and whether or not it was journalistic of TMZ. The New York times weighed in on the incident in an article by Mike Hale about Taylor Swift on the View. Hale shared a fairly satirical look on the whole thing. He included the remarks by President Obama, but also included that the remarks stayed off of the official interview transcripts. The NY Times added a lot more information than Telegraph did, proving that the US needs more information to be satisfied.

There were two articles about the killing of eight U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, one in Telegraph, and one in The New York Times. The story in the Telegraph was very to the point. It explained exactly the five w’s – What happened, where it happened, when it happened, why it happened and who it happened to. This article was much easier to read than the story in the NY Times, which outlined the story in its entirety. Britain needs much less explanation when it comes to American soldiers dying. They want to know what happened, and be done with it. Americans need more, since it was their men. The Times even tells some things that Telegraph says have not yet been confirmed. The Times is trying to cover its bases, and tell a lot. Too much isn’t a thing when it comes to the Times and this report. Telegraph wanted to tell the truth and tell it well. The Times wanted to tell the truth, and every ensuing detail so that Americans would be satisfied.

Telegraph has new developments on the story about Obama refusing to met with the Dalai Lama that the New York Times does not. NY Times has a report from earlier last month. It seems as though the NY Times does not want to shed a bad light on the president.


What’s too much? I have yet to find out. But it is obvious that countries report very differently according to what matters most to them.