Washington Post Forgets It Fought (And Won) Legal Battle Against Mandatory Transparency; Now Demands Internet Co's Face The Same

from the psst,-editorial-board,-speak-to-your-lawyers dept

A few years ago the Washington Post (and a bunch of other newspapers) fought and won a fairly important 1st Amendment lawsuit to strike down as unconstitutional a Maryland law that required news organizations to publicly post information about the political ads they chose to carry. The district court and then the appeals court found that the law was pretty clearly unconstitutional:

As the district court noted in a lengthy and thoughtful opinion, Washington Post, 355 F. Supp.3d at 272-306, the Act is a content-based law that targets political speech and compels newspapers, among other platforms, to carry certain messages on their websites. In other words, Maryland's law is a compendium of traditional First Amendment infirmities.

Specifically, the court found that the compelled speech aspect of the law was particularly problematic:

Taken together, the Act's publication and inspection requirements ultimately present compelled speech problems twice over. For one, they force elements of civil society to speak when they otherwise would have refrained. Time and again, the Supreme Court has made clear that it makes little difference for First Amendment 515*515 purposes whether the government acts as censor or conductor. Indeed, the "freedom of speech `includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.'" Janus v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps. Council 31, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2463, 201 L.Ed.2d 924 (2018) (quoting Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977) (internal quotation omitted)). It is the presence of compulsion from the state itself that compromises the First Amendment. The Amendment extends "not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid." Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 573, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995).

What's more, the fact that the Act compels third parties to disclose certain identifying information regarding political speakers implicates protections for anonymous speech. Requiring the press itself to disclose the identity or characteristics of political speakers is a problematic step. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 709, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (Powell, J., concurring) (noting that newsmen faced with a grand jury subpoena are not "without constitutional rights with respect to the gathering of news or in safeguarding their sources"); id. at 725, 92 S.Ct. 2646 (Stewart, J., dissenting) (requiring the press to disclose its sources risks "annex[ing] the journalistic profession as an investigative arm of government"). This country, moreover, has "a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes." McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 343, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995). Much as our forebears elected to hash out the architecture of this nation under the pseudonyms of "Publius" and "Agrippa," many political advocates today also opt for anonymity in hopes their arguments will be debated on their merits rather than their makers. See id. at 343, 343 n.6, 115 S.Ct. 1511. To be sure, this tradition of anonymity is anything but absolute. But revelations of executive misconduct throughout our history have often been anonymously sourced. And when the government enlists the press to disclose the sources of political speech, thus potentially exposing those speakers to identification and harassment, First Amendment protections and values come into play. See Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 14-15, 106 S.Ct. 903, 89 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (plurality opinion).

Apparently, the editorial board of the Washington Post is wholly unfamiliar with this lawsuit and the fact that its own publication won this lawsuit just two years ago. Because in a new opinion piece, the Editorial Board of the Washington Post calls for nearly identical requirements for internet companies. Really.

Specifically, the Washington Post endorses the extremely problematic recommendations from the Aspen Institute's Commission on Information Disorder:

The report starts, as any study aimed at restoring trust and truth ought to, by acknowledging reality: “In a free society, a certain amount of misinformation will always exist.” The hope isn’t to punish every exaggeration, piece of propaganda or flat-out lie but to home in on the most egregious damage caused by specific types of mis- and disinformation — by discouraging people from spreading falsehoods and minimizing the fallout when they do. This is easiest in “empirically grounded” areas, in which facts can most clearly be found: public health and election integrity foremost among them.

How do we do it? Some steps are obvious, such as mandating more transparency from technology companies. Platforms should be required, for instance, to publish data about the content, source, targeting and reach of posts seen by large audiences, as well as produce standardized archives of the material they remove or otherwise moderate.

That "obvious" step is exactly what the Washington Post fought in court against and won just two years ago. And, it should be noted that in fighting that Maryland law, the Washington Post trotted out Section 230 as a reason that the law should be pre-empted, but the court went past that and didn't even bother with the 230 issues, noting that the 1st Amendment was the issue, and it didn't even need to bother with Section 230.

In some ways, this isn't surprising. For reasons I don't fully understand, newspapers seem to have a weird blindspot for the very laws and constitutional rights that protect themselves when there are attacks on those rights on internet companies. The more conspiratorial will insist that this is because news organizations are jealous of the success of internet companies -- with whom they often compete for ad dollars. But I think it's likely to be somewhat more fundamental than that. Institutionally, too many news organizations take such a dismissive view of the internet and the communities created on it, and look at themselves as the "defenders of truth" (hell, the Washington Post's own bizarre slogan, "Democracy Dies in Darkness" is trumpeted on every damn page). To them, the internet and social media are riff raff -- enabling the people who are too stupid for their own good to wallow in disinformation.

And, thus, the only answer must be to mandate these kinds of rules that could and should never apply to the pure giant news orgs. It's disappointing and hypocritical, but hardly surprising.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, compelled speech, disinformation, editorial independence, section 230, transparency
Companies: aspen institute, washington post

Smoking Gun: MPAA Emails Reveal Plan To Run Anti-Google Smear Campaign Via Today Show And WSJ

from the editorial-independence? dept

If you talk to the reporters who work for various big media companies, they insist that they have true editorial independence from the business side of their companies. They insist that the news coverage isn't designed to reflect the business interests of their owners. Of course, most people have always suspected this was bullshit -- and you could see evidence of this in things like the fact that the big TV networks refused to cover the SOPA protests. But -- until now -- there's never necessarily been a smoking gun with evidence of how such business interests influences the editorial side.

Earlier this month, we noted that the Hollywood studios were all resisting subpoenas from Google concerning their super cozy relationship with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, whose highly questionable "investigation" of Google appeared to actually be run by the MPAA and the studios themselves. The entire "investigation" seemed to clearly be an attempt to mislead the public into believing that it was somehow illegal for Google's search engine to find stuff that people didn't like online. A court has already ruled that Hood pretty clearly acted in bad faith to deprive Google of its First Amendment rights. As the case has continued, Google has sought much more detail on just how much of the investigation was run by the MPAA and the studios -- and Hollywood has vigorously resisted, claiming that they really had nothing to do with all of this, which was a laughable assertion.

However, in a filing on Thursday, Google revealed one of the few emails that they have been able to get access to so far, and it's stunning. It's an email between the MPAA and two of Jim Hood's top lawyers in the Mississippi AG's office, discussing the big plan to "hurt" Google. Beyond influencing other Attorneys General (using misleading fake "setups" of searches for "bad" material) and paying for fake anti-Google research, the lawyers from Hood's office flat out admit that they're expecting the MPAA and the major studios to have its media arms run a coordinated propaganda campaign of bogus anti-Google stories:

Media: We want to make sure that the media is at the NAAG meeting. We propose working with MPAA (Vans), Comcast, and NewsCorp (Bill Guidera) to see about working with a PR firm to create an attack on Google (and others who are resisting AG efforts to address online piracy). This PR firm can be funded through a nonprofit dedicated to IP issues. The "live buys" should be available for the media to see, followed by a segment the next day on the Today Show (David green can help with this). After the Today Show segment, you want to have a large investor of Google (George can help us determine that) come forward and say that Google needs to change its behavior/demand reform. Next, you want NewsCorp to develop and place an editorial in the WSJ emphasizing that Google's stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs and noting some of the possible causes of action we have developed.

In other words, Jim Hood and the MPAA were out and out planning a coordinated media attack on Google using the editorial properties that supposedly claim to have editorial independence from the business side. Notice that with the WSJ piece, they flat out admit that the editorial will be based on the ideas that "we" have developed. If you work for the WSJ, your editorial independence just got shot down. Remember when CBS stepped in and interfered editorially with CNET for giving an award to Dish at the same time that CBS was in a legal fight over that same device? That resulted in reporters quitting.

This is worse.

This is an out and out case where the MPAA is admitting to a plan whereby it will use mainstream media properties to run bogus and misleading stories to "attack" Google, to further the MPAA's (believed, but misleadingly so) business interests. Is this really how the Today Show and the WSJ pick their editorial topics?

The "plan" goes even further after that, getting the MPAA to find (and almost certainly pay for) a lawyer to work with the "shareholder" previously identified to file legal filings against Google.

Following the media blitz, you want Bill Guidera and Rick Smotkin to work with the PR firm to identify a lawyer specializing in SEC matters to work with a stockholder. This lawyer should be able to the [sic] identify the appropriate regulatory filing to be made against Google.

As Google notes in its legal filing about this email, the "plan" states that if this effort fails, then the next step will be to file the subpoena (technically a CID or "civil investigatory demand") on Google, written by the MPAA but signed by Hood. As Google points out, this makes it pretty clear (1) that the MPAA, studios and Hood were working hand in hand in all of this and (2) that the subpoena had no legitimate purpose behind it, but rather was the final step in a coordinated media campaign to pressure Google to change the way its search engine works. It's pretty damning:

The document thus shows that the CID was not the foundation of a legitimate investigation—rather, it was a “final step” that would be issued only “if necessary” to further pressure Google to capitulate to the demands of AG Hood and his supporters.

The court has yet to rule on what else Hollywood needs to turn over, but just from what's coming out already, serious questions are being raised (1) about Jim Hood and his office and what they were up to as well as (2) the editorial independence of the media arms of the MPAA studios, including both NBCUniversal ("the Today Show") and NewsCorp. (the Wall Street Journal).

Filed Under: editorial independence, jim hood, media, mississippi, news, smear campaign, today show, wsj
Companies: comcast, google, mpaa, nbc universal, newscorp

CNET Finally Reports On Its Own Fight With CBS Over Dish CES Award

from the a-bit-slow-out-the-gate dept

Realizing that the longer it did nothing, the worse it looked, CNET itself has finally reported on the events that transpired last week when corporate boss CBS stepped into the middle of their editorial process and sought to deny CNET the ability to choose the product they thought was the best of CES, the Dish DVR with Hopper and Sling.

After the vote, we communicated the winners, as we always do, through normal channels. CNET immediately got down to the business of preparing for a massive stage show the following morning and preparing a press release.

Later that evening, we were alerted to the legal conflict for CBS. All night and through to morning, my managers up and down CNET and I fought for two things: To honor the original vote and -- when it became clear that CBS Corporate did not accept that answer -- to issue a transparent statement regarding the original vote.

Ultimately, we were told that we must use the official statement and that we must follow corporate policy to defer all press requests to corporate communications.

Of course, this is only coming out well after tons of other sources had reported on this -- and upstart competitor the Verge had already broken the story about how CBS didn't just tell CNET not to vote on the Dish device, but made them rescind the award that had already been chosen.

The CNET post, by reviews Editor in Chief Lindsey Turrentine, suggests that most of the staff had no idea that CBS was in litigation with Dish and they were just doing what they were supposed to do. She also pushes back against the idea that she should resign:

We were in an impossible situation as journalists. The conflict of interest was real -- a legal case can impact the bottom line of our company and introduce the possibility of bias -- but the circumstances demanded more transparency and not hurried policy.

I could have quit right then. Maybe I should have. I decided that the best thing for my team was to get through the day as best we could and to fight the fight from the other side. Every single member of the CNET Reviews team is a dedicated, ethical, passionate technology critic. If I abandoned them now, I would be abandoning the ship.

The thing is, if she had quit, I would bet that many on her team would not have seen it as being abandoned, but actually as real leadership of someone supporting their editorial independence.

She then goes on to insist that she'll fight to make sure this doesn't happen again -- but that seems difficult to believe since earlier in the existing story it suggests that she and others gave up the fight when CBS told them what they had to do:

If I had to face this dilemma again, I would not quit. I stand by my team and the years of work they have put into making CNET what it is. But I wish I could have overridden the decision not to reveal that Dish had won the vote in the trailer. For that I apologize to my staff and to CNET readers.

The one thing I want to clearly communicate to my team and to everyone at CNET and beyond is this: CNET does excellent work. Its family of writers is unbiased, focused, bright, and true. CNET will continue to do excellent good work. Of that I am certain. Going forward, I will do everything within my power to prevent this situation from happening again.

Of course, the decision to quit is one that every individual has to make themselves. But completely taking it out of the realm of possibility gives CBS the easy power to do this again and again and again. She's signalling to CBS that it can continue to walk over CNET's editorial independence, and while the editor-in-chief may protest loudly, in the end, she won't leave. That's only going to add to the cloud over CNET's reviews going forward.

Filed Under: conflicts, editorial independence, journalism
Companies: cbs, cnet, dish