Ms. Hargrove-Simon replaces Kathleen Paul, who was the Silha Center administrative assistant for nine years. Ms. Paul has retired to start her own business. Both Ms. Paul and Ms. Hargrove-Simon see the programs and missions of the Center as vital to the Center's continued growth. Ms. Hargrove-Simon says, "As a consumer and student of the news, I feel very fortunate to be so closely involved with the journalism world, particularly at this point, where it intersects with academia and research."

Davis Merritt (DM): Well, I call it public journalism...And I heard it when Jay Rosen and I made it up and that was about '92, I guess. We'd been talking about this idea for some time and realized that we needed to give it a name though we didn't want to give it a name, but needed to have something to call it because it's about as much about public life as it is about journalism, we decided to call it public journalism.

SB: How would you define public journalism?

DM: I'm struggling here because I couldn't give you a two-sentence paragraph definition of journalism itself. Public journalism is journalism that seeks to help public life go better by engaging people in it at a deeper level. You go far beyond that, but that's the nut of it.

SB: Now, do you see public journalism as blurring the lines between news and business or....

DM: Oh, no!

SB: How so?

DM: Well, how do you see it as blurring? I mean, it doesn't even arise. I'm a journalist. That question doesn't even arise.

SB: And so, you would not see any conflicts between trying to increase circulation through this or anything? It's purely from a civic, public point of view?

DM: Well, all journalism aims at increasing circulation. Investigative journalism has one of its aims increasing circulation, right? Newspapers have to sell in order to be read. But that's not what drives this. What drives this is the dilemma in public life and the fact that journalism is in trouble and public journalism is our response, to those dilemmas.

SB: How would you say journalism is in trouble?

DM: Take a look at any survey you want. Penetration is going down, circulation on almost every newspaper in the country is going down. Any surveys you see of credibility of journalists, any surveys you see about believability, every measure I've ever seen in the last 10 years (shows) journalism has been in sharp decline. I believe that one of the reasons journalism is in trouble in things like credibility and authority is that the way we have told the news in the last 10 or 15 years has relentlessly sent the message to people, "This isn't about you and your concerns, this is something that is going on that you are helpless to affect, the political system, the things going on in public life are far beyond you, you're not involved, you're spectators, if not victims." And you know, that's not the only way to do good journalism. There are ways to do good journalism that don't create that gap, and that's what we're trying to figure out how to do.

SB: How is public journalism different from good old-fashioned reporting by journalists who have routinely questioned people about issues and their priorities?

DM: Oh, in that sense, it may not be any different, but I don't know many journalists who have done much listening to people. If they do, it is not reflected in what I see in newspapers...Conflict is the heart of democracy, and we do need to address it, but we write about conflict, for instance, in very narrow ways that exclude most people from the discussion. We write about it using experts and absolutists on quote, the two sides, unquote, instead of also including that vast middle ground where most peoples' views are held. I mean, have you read E.J. Dionne, Jr.'s book, Why Americans Hate Politics? Well, he makes the point very well about politicians framing issues at the extremes for their own purposes, and that this is the major reason, he says, that Americans are disenchanted and cynical about politics is because they're not part of the discussion. They don't hear their views in the discussions, and you know, the question that I have is, where do most of these Americans who hate politics learn most of what they know about politics? From journalists. Because we frame stories in exactly the same way. And it's that kind of habit of mind that we're seeking to change. We're not saying that a lot of the journalism that is going on and has been going on is bad. There's a lot of quite good journalism that is going on. But it's insufficient, a lot of it, in that it, rather than engaging people, in the journalism and in the process of public life, it repels them. Well, it doesn't have to be that way. By changing some of the habits and some of the conventions that we have fallen into such as the way we deal with conflict, I believe that we can do good journalism, continue to do good journalism, but also draw people back into both journalism and public life. I can't prove this, but again, this is our response to the twin dilemmas of public life and journalism. If somebody's got a better response, let's hear it. But this is our response.

SB: Now you say one of the weaknesses of journalism today is that journalists don't listen. What are some of the other weaknesses?

DM: This kind of adversarial attitude toward all institutions, including the institution of the public. Journalism is in a defensive crouch all the time and there are some reasons for that, and I understand it. I've been a working newspaperman for 42 years and I know about all there is to know about it, from that point of view. But, you know, we need a healthy skepticism. My observation is that what used to be healthy skepticism has just turned into just this snarly adversarialism about everything. And I think that's reflected in our newspapers, and I think that's one of the habits we have to recognize. Another one is we have to recognize that we frame stories - that's what journalists do. And that the way we frame stories needs to be a more reflective and thoughtful process, when it can be, than the way we do it now. That's another habit we need to develop. We need to understand the distinction between objectivity and detachment and understand that journalistic objectivity is a good thing if it exists, and I contend it does, that there is such a thing as journalistic objectivity, having it meaning fairness and balance and accuracy and a clear, cool-headed look at the facts. Journalistic objectivity is an important thing and we must maintain it, but detachment, this sort of "we're not part of anything notion, uh, doesn't work well for us." It separates us from our sources, it separates us from our audiences, it separates us from the whole rest of the world. It's mandatory that journalists care about the implications of their work, and so often when we're doing stories, the way the frames we choose to do stories are frames that say "you're not involved here." Well, whether we like it or not, or whether we're comfortable with it or not, the way we do journalism affects the way public life goes. That is inescapable. What we choose to put in the story, what we choose to leave out, how we choose to emphasize things within a story, all of those things affect what happens. And so, we are kidding ourselves if we say, "Oh, no, we're just good observers, sitting off here on a mountain and neither responsible nor accountable for the outcome of what we do." That's an unethical and immoral position. There's a difference between journalistic objectivity and detachment. Definitely.

SB: If you met a reader who knew nothing about this concept and was complaining to you about the lack of civic pride, or apathy, how would you tell him that this might benefit his community and perhaps get some of that civic pride back?

DM: Well, because, and I don't know whether civic pride is the right word, I assume that if people are more engaged in civic life, they would have some pride about it. Here's the thing. Journalism is totally dependent upon democracy working well. And democracy is totally dependent upon journalism. There's a total interdependence there. And we as journalists have a stake, whether we like it or not, and whether democracy works well and whether people are engaged. If people are not engaged in public life, they have no need for journalists. Because what we do is about public life for the most part. And if people continue to withdraw from concerns about public life and engagement in public life, our downward trends are going to continue and accelerate. We have a vested interest as journalists as well as democratic citizens and people being engaged in public life. And I make no apology for the notion that democracy works best when people are fully engaged in it. That's sort of the essence of the idea.

Merritt will deliver the 1997 Silha Lecture at 12:15 p.m., Tuesday, November 4, at the Humphrey Center's Cowles Auditorium on the West Bank of the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities Campus. In his lecture, "Disconnecting from Detachment" Merritt will explore the inextricable connection between journalism and democracy threatened by journalistic detachment. Sponsored by the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law, the lecture and reception following are free and open to the public.

In the ensuing debate there has even been disagreement over the concept's proper name. Some call it public journalism, others use the term "civic journalism."

"I call it public journalism," Merritt says. "I heard it when Jay Rosen and I made it up, and that was about '92. We had been talking about this idea for some time and realized that we needed to give it a name, even though we didn't want to give it a name. But we needed to have something to call it. And because it's as much about journalism as it is about public life, we decided to call it public journalism."

The senior editor of the Wichita Eagle in Wichita (KA), where he has been for 22 years, Merritt, 61, is also a consultant to Knight-Ridder Newspapers on public/civic journalism. After graduating from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, he began his journalism career at The Charlotte Observer (NC) where he spent 12 years in several reporting and editing positions, before moving to Washington, D.C., as the newspaper's Washington correspondent. Merritt also worked for The Boca Raton News (FL) and Knight-Ridder newspapers, then joined the Wichita Eagle in 1975. He is also a Morehead Scholar and a member of the Kappa Tau Alpha honorary society.

Included among his numerous awards for local government writing is the 1997 Bart Richards Award for Media Criticism for his article "Public Journalism and Public Life." He is the co-author of Public Journalism: Theory and Practice, now in its second edition, and author of Public Journalism and the Public: Why Telling the Truth Is Not Enough, also in its second edition.

In his Silha lecture on journalistic detachment, Merritt will discuss six arguments for "an ethic of journalistic purposefulness." Those include:

• Detachment is not the fount of journalism's credibility.
• There's way too much truth out there.
• An announced bias is just as good as no bias at all.
• Detachment presents impossible human and moral dilemmas.
• Self interest demands a disconnection from detachment.
• Walter Lippman doesn't work here anymore.

JACK BRESLIN

Bulletin Editor

By Genelle Belmas, Jennifer Lambe, and William Babcock.

The American public is becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the media. Many such people - those either annoyed with or hostile toward newspapers - have for the past few decades railed against the media, urging the creation of news councils as a means of controlling or "getting back" at the press. While the public's wrath is not directed against newspapers alone, it is clear that, amid steadily declining readership, newspapers must have a stake in trying not only to manage their credibility, but also to be more accessible and responsive to public needs and desires.

News councils are one possible mechanism for increasing understanding between the press and public. The Minnesota News Council is the nation's longest-running statewide non-legal media dispute resolution body. This paper examines the determinations of the Council in which newspapers are respondents. Given the media's increasing lack of credibility with the public, our findings indicate that newspapers would be well-served to examine their long-standing distrust of news councils and instead see such councils as a means of helping the news industry regain the public's trust.

New Technology and the Law

While the Conference begins with a Friday evening reception on April 17, the panels will be on Saturday and Sunday. Saturday's 9:30-11:30 a.m. panel focuses on New Technology and the Law. Moderated by Prof Everette E. Dennis of Fordham University's Graduate School, Session I will examine:

• Whether technological advances enhance or threaten the First Amendment.
• If the U.S. Supreme Court's medium-specific approach to the First Amendment is becoming outdated and unworkable.
• How the global nature of the communications industry affects freedom of speech issues.
• The viability of technological solutions (such as the V-chip and blocking software) on the Internet.

Included on the Session I panel are Prof. Jerome A. Barron of George Washington University, Ann Kappler of Jenner & Block, Prof. Donald Pember of the University of Washington, and Prof. Robert Trager of the University of Colorado.

Convergence of Legal and Ethical Issues

Saturday's 2-4 p.m. panel addresses the Convergence of Legal and Ethical Issues, focusing on such issues as:

• Whether ethics and law collisions in a case such as Cohen v. Cowles Media are inevitable.
• Given the increasing intrusiveness of both stablished and new media technologies, whether "turning off' the media should be our only recourse.
• How it might be possible to balance the public's need to know with individuals' concerns with an ever-intrusive media.
• Whether ombudsmen, ethics codes, and news councils are viable alternatives to litigation.

Chaired by Prof Theodore Glasser of Stanford University, Session II's panelists include Prof. Clifford G. Christians of the University of Illinois, Prof. Deni Elliott of the University of Montana, Dean Timothy Gleason of the University of Oregon, and Prof. Louis W. Hodges of Washington & Lee University.

Newsgathering

Sunday's 9:30-11:30 a.m. panel on Newsgathering is moderated by James Goodale of Debevoise and Plimpton. Focusing on Newsgathering, Session III examines:

• The legacy of Food Lion.
• Whether we might expect future litigation to skirt the First Amendment, focusing instead on issues such as trespass.
• What should be the appropriate level of First Amendment protection.
• To what extent shield laws can be expected in the future to provide journalists with adequate newsgathering protection.

Session III panelists include John Borger of Faegre & Benson, Joanne Byrd of the

Seattle Post- Intelligencer, James Naughton of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, and John J. Walsh of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

General Information

A question and answer session will follow each panel. In all three sessions, panelists' formal papers will be collected and published in a book to be given to each participant attending the National Media Ethics and Law Conference. Additional books may be ordered at a cost of $60 each.

A banquet (black tie optional) dedicated to the contributions of Donald M. Gillmor, Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law will be given Saturday night, April 18, at 6:30. A blue-colored Conference information and registration form is included with this Bulletin. If your form is missing, please contact the Silha Center at (612) 625-3421 or by email at silha@tc.umn.edu. -WILLIAM A. BABCOCK

Director, Silha Center

While lecturing from with his yellowed note cards, which showed signs of constant updating over the years, Gillmor couldn't miss the crowd of staff and faculty gathering outside the classroom door. On behalf of thousands of grateful students and fellow scholars, they had gathered to honor the award-winning Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law - even if he would be "embarrassed" by the party.

"I'm always embarrassed in situations like that," Gillmor, who will be 72 in April, admitted later. "And as I analyze myself, in answering the question why I don't like farewells, I think it's because I grew up as a fairly shy person, and I don't like to make friends and colleagues feel obligated to attend something like that. That's as difficult for me [to handle] as the last day of class was."

Yet there was also "a certain amount of relief' involved with that final lecture. The constantly changing area of media law can be "challenging," even for the co-author (with Jerome Barron and Todd Simon) of the field's classic textbook, Mass Communication Law: Cases and Comment, just published in its sixth edition.

"I do think I feel a certain amount of relief since I'm at the age where normal wear and tear begins to show," he said. "And it gets more challenging to keep up in a field that is as fluid as the media law and ethics area - it never, never stands still."

His writing and lectures might be completed, but that doesn't mean Gillmor's scholarly mind will rest. In retirement he intends to cultivate his interests in art, music and architecture under the tutelage of his two younger brothers, a musicologist and an architect, both active Canadian university professors. He also intends to travel with Sophie, his wife of 46 years, seeking out art museums, cathedrals and concerts. While home in the Twin Cities, he will spend "a lot more time" with his two young grandsons.

"I have never had time to do these things before because I have been very much wrapped up in my work," Gillmor explained. "I have been very single minded about my teaching and my research, and so it's a bittersweet feeling to be sure. But there's something to be said for it. It's not as if I'm being denied a future. I have a future to explore."

A native of Fort Francis, Ontario, Gillmor began his journalism career in 1950, at the Winnipeg Free Press, after earning his bachelor's degree at the University of Manitoba. Prior to that, he joined the Royal Canadian Air Force at age 17, but wound up with the army infantry due to heavy Canadian losses in Europe. Gillmor's mother was a registered nurse and his father was "a mechanical genius of sorts," credited with several inventions.

Lured by an offer of double his reporter salary, Gillmor left his native Canada in 1953 for a teaching job at the University of North Dakota in 1953, where he eventually became a full professor and started the All-University Honors Program. Receiving both his master's and doctoral degrees at the University of Minnesota, he joined the faculty in 1965. During his distinguished tenure, he also helped established the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law, thanks to his fellow Canadian and best friend, Jerry Kline, then SIMC director, and benefactors Otto and Helen Silha.

Gillmor credited his original interest in media law to former Minnesota professor J. Edward Gerald, to whom he dedicated his first book, Free Press and Fair Trial, based on his doctoral dissertation. Since then, Gillmor has authored or co-authored a library shelf worth of books, articles, essays, reviews and legal briefs, and has lectured nationally and internationally.

When asked what accomplishments he was most proud of, Gillmor mentioned his four teaching awards - one from the University of North Dakota; the first Horace T. Morse Distinguished Teaching Professor, awarded by the Minnesota Alumni Association; and two from the Minnesota Press Club - along with his first published book, and the respected textbook he co-authored with Jerome Barron.

"There's only one thing in the world more exciting than your first book, and that's your first child," he remarked. "That is something I cherish. After that, you tend to take the publication of books for granted...So I am very, very satisfied. I couldn't ask for anything more."

How does the veteran professor feel when former students thank him for the wisdom and knowledge he passed along?

"Oh, I feel grateful," he answered humbly. "I just feel very, very grateful."

And judging from that loyal group gathered for that "last class" party - many, many feel the same way.

JACK BRESLIN

Bulletin Editor

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 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

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

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

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.

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

Judicial alarm bells first rang when it turned out that the principle of "community standards" did not apply in the world of the Internet. This principle helped courts avoid uniformity in their definition of "obscenity" by considering the standards of local communities. However, in the landmark case of United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6^th Cir. 1996), the federal district court in Tennessee obtained jurisdiction over California residents who operated an adult computer bulletin board from their home. A San Francisco couple was brought to trial in Memphis on obscenity charges and subsequently convicted. This case illustrates how communities with stricter speech regulation can dictate what is allowable on computers in other jurisdictions.

On an international scale, a similar case occurred in 1995 in Munich, Germany, where Bavarian police raided a local CompuServe office and forced the network to shut down online access to more than 200 allegedly pornographic sites. Among the closed sites were ones devoted to the culture of sexual minorities - sites not deemed illegal by many countries. This incident prompted Floyd Abrams, former counsel to the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, to conclude that in the future countries that afford less protection to the freedom of speech may be "the ones that really rule in terms of what is ultimately posted or carried at all by other forms of media." This rationale may apply not only to online pornography, but to hate speech and political debates as well.

For many citizens of totalitarian regimes, the only way to express their beliefs in political discussions is to seek privacy in the online forum. Many political dissidents, abuse victims, and recovering alcoholics turn to the services of anonymous remailers. These services strip all identification from e-mail messages and forward them to their intended destinations anonymously. However, anonymity is also sought by people with much less laudable motives - namely, online pornographers.

Consequently, law enforcement agencies seek to curb services of anonymous remailers in an effort to expose child pornographers on the Internet. For example, in the fall of 1996, Penet, a popular free-of-charge remailer service maintained by a Finnish volunteer, closed after the London Observer accused it of facilitating online communication among pornographers. The Internet community termed the service's demise "a sad day for the Net," because it took away "a certain free-wheeling spirit." Online privacy helps to ensure free online discussions.

Cyber-freedoms depend largely on entities that provide users with online access - namely, Internet service providers (ISPs) and operators of bulletin board services (BBSs). Companies such as Netscape and Microsoft take on "the color of the state" by monopolizing Internet access service and regulating online activities. If courts hold ISPs and BBS operators directly responsible for illegal activities of their users, the latter may start censoring online speech in fear of costly litigation.

However, when it comes to cases involving explicit adult-oriented material, the heavy aura of moral wrongdoing that is often present around them could sway the opinion of any reasonable person, including a judge. Just put yourself in the shoes of a Texas federal judge presiding over the case Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 1171 (N.D.Tex. 1997). Playboy sued operators of the adult-oriented "Neptics" site for reproduction, distribution and display of its copyrighted images. However, just weeks prior to the trial, all "Neptics" equipment was seized by police on charges of child pornography. Knowing this fact, which has little to do with the copyright litigation at issue, could you stay completely impartial? The Texas court found the site operators directly and vicariously liable for unauthorized use of Playboy images.

In its decision, the Webbworld court relied on another case involving display of adult-oriented images, Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F.Supp. 1552 (M.D.Fla. 1993). The Frena case was one of the first cases involving liability of BES operators for illegal activities of their users. It dealt with the unauthorized display of nearly 170 adult images from Playboy and Playmate publications by a private BBS. The federal district court in Florida found the BBS operator, George Frena, directly responsible for the acts of his subscribers despite the fact that Frena claimed he was unaware of any illegal conduct on his network.

This case had two major consequences. First, it set a troublesome precedent: ISPs can be held directly liable for illegal acts of their users. Since then, the Frena decision has been cited by most of the courts dealing with the issue of ISP liability. Among those cases are Central Point Software v. Nugent, 903 F.Supp. 1057 (E.D. Tex. 1995), Sega Enterprises v. Sabella, US Dist. LEXIS 20470 (N.D.Cal. 1996) and Marobie-FL, Inc. v. NAFED, US Dist. LEXIS 18764 (N.D. Illinois 1997). Thus, the Frena rationale extended to other materials, such as computer clip art and electronic video games.

Second, George Frena set the example for ISPs when, upon Playboy's notification, he voluntarily took from the network all allegedly infringing images. Soon thereafter, courts developed a standard holding ISPs liable for activities of their users if they "know or have reason to know" about infringing acts. Usually; this requirement can be satisfied by notifying the online providers of allegedly infringing conduct on their network. However, what appears to be a copyright infringement may very well be a fair use. Determining what are fair and unfair uses of someone's work is a complex process involving careful balancing of multiple factors. ISPs may not be reasonably expected to know the nuances of copyright law, and come to a sound conclusion in each case whether a certain use qualifies for a fair-use exemption. As a result, another limitation on the freedom of communication has emerged - only now by private online service companies and not by government.

When defending speech "extremes," such as pornography on the Internet, we should remember that there is much at stake. The judicial precedents from cases involving pornography will apply in the future to other materials, more "worthy" of First Amendment protection.

IRINA DMITRIEVA

SJMC Masters Student

Jeremy Iggers (JI): That's a good question. Part of what it's saying is that sometimes the good news is the bad news. Sometimes the emphasis on good news, or on giving people the kind of news they want to hear, is bad news, because it's failing to give people what they need to know. On another level, good news is news that is presented to people in a way that's useful for them - news that they act on. And bad news is sort of the news that sensationalizes or panders.

SB: In your book, you mention that sometimes today's media are a little too passive in getting people to become good citizens. What can we do to fix that?

JI: The first thing that the media can do to fix that is to recognize that the world has changed. Newspapers always operated as part of a system where you first read the newspaper, and then you'd go to the local cafe and talk about what you'd read with your neighbors. People's lives have changed and so newspapers have to respond to that by creating environments where people can talk about the newspaper, and creating new kinds of forums. They may be electronic forums where people can process the information. Putting out the information is only one part of the process. The next part is people sharing information and talking about what needs to be done. That's where there aren't as many opportunities as there once were.

SB: You talk about providing information and the conflict between serving the customer and serving the readers. Is there a happy medium?

JI: Oh, sure. Journalists have always had to strike the balance between telling people what they need to know and telling people what they want to hear. Again, especially in broadcast, we still do a surprisingly good job a lot of the time, at least at this newspaper [Star Tribune]. In broadcast especially that balance has been totally lost. It has kept shifting, sort of like a seesaw, a little bit more year after year. Lately, the balance has gotten almost completely lost.

SB: You mention the social responsibility theory, which deals with journalism's role in fostering democracy. How can you get journalists, particularly management, concerned about social responsibility and issues such as quality, giving more access, or corporate ownership changes?

JI: It's hard because people have to believe that it's in their bottom-line interest. It's very clear that quality journalism is in the long-term, bottom-line interest of newspaper and maintaining a loyal readership to cultivate the next generation of newspaper readers. The long-term [interest] is more important than grabbing them today. What's unfortunate is that a lot of owners, especially in television, feel that they can't think about the long term. Unless they keep ratings up this quarter, this sweeps period, they're not going to be around next year to worry about next year or the next generation.

SB: What has to be done to get this generation to become newspaper readers? Or are newspapers going to so radically change in the next 20 years that the newspaper as we know it now may no longer exist?

JI: The real future of the newspaper depends on whether people perceive it as something that's useful in their lives, that improves their quality of life, not just by entertaining them, but by helping them to achieve their goals. The other part is that newspapers have a particular niche. A newspaper is a mass medium, and unless it addresses its readers as members of a large community, it can't compete against the publication which addresses them as members of a small community.

SB: Are you saying that traditional journalism dying? If it is, what can we do to revive it?

JI: There are still a lot of people out there who are very interested in creating lines of communication between people in a community. Unfortunately, they're not often the owners of broadcast licenses or of large metropolitan newspapers. They're often people who own community newspapers. That's where some of the best journalism is going on. If journalism is in trouble, it's because people no longer think of themselves as citizens. The media has had a lot to do with that because they no longer address their audience as citizens; they address them as consumers. The way to reinvigorate journalism is to use the media to reinvigorate people - give them sense of themselves as citizens. That sounds like really dry, boring civics class stuff. But there are lots of things which newspapers can do that are innovative, creative and fun, which can revive a sense of citizenship.

SB: Is public/civic journalism part of the answer?

JI: I think so. That term gets used in so many different ways. It's misused, abused, and defined in so many different ways that it's tricky to say that. One definition of public journalism, I think [New York University professor] Jay Rosen's definition is that it's journalism that is motivated by a concern for the vitality of public life. That's a good definition of public journalism. All journalists should be motivated by that concern and see that they have a role to play in insuring that vitality.

So how might this change affect working journalists in Minnesota? Bob Franklin, reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune and SPJ Freedom of Information Act director, said that the new shield law will actually help reporters avoid having to make sweeping modifications in the way they do their jobs. The change to the shield law "will avoid prompting journalists to make large changes in the way they do their day-to-day work," Mr. Franklin said. "And it will prevent some of the non-day-to-day experiences of being hauled into court to testify."

However, Kate Parry, senior editor for Enterprise, Investigations and Politics at the St. Paul Pioneer Press, said that the shield law alteration will result in changes in newsrooms precisely because subpoenas will be reduced. She noted that subpoenas for journalists' unpublished information occur with increasing frequency and are a serious drain on newsroom resources. This law will help reduce the number of subpoenas and thus prevent the huge diversion of staff time and money. And although journalists try to source on the record as often as possible, "the law protects our ability to do that digging-deep journalism that's got risks associated with it - we need to assure sources that we can keep their anonymity shielded within the scope of the law," Ms. Parry said. This change will help journalists do that when necessary and reduce the amount of time and resources needed to answer subpoenas, she added.

From a legal perspective, media attorney Paul Hannah claimed that the change will reduce the number of subpoenas in civil cases. (Journalists might still have to answer subpoenas in criminal cases if the relevance issue is met). "First, journalists covering contentious issues won't be dragged into the middle of them because of what they've written," Mr. Hannah said, "Second, the law will benefit small and large community newspapers because there will be a marked decrease in the number of lawyers trying to use journalists to provide elements of their cases."

In her 1996 masters' thesis, former Minnesota Daily editor-in-chief Michele Ames wrote about the dangers associated with the courts' interpretations of Minnesota's shield law: "If the trend toward increasing news media involvement as information providers in the court system is not halted...news organizations may find themselves more tentative in covering events likely to place them in the line of fire for subpoenas." The protection of unpublished materials made explicit in the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act is one step closer to the goal of ensuring that journalists can conduct investigations without fear of courts requiring them to act as an arm of law enforcement through the subpoena process.

GENELLE BELMAS

Silha Research Fellow

*See Bulletin articles "Point" and "Counterpoint," Spring 1996, for two points of view on editor-in-chief Michele Ames' refusal to turn over subpoenaed unpublished photographs in this case.