Spot News      the Web edition  Vol. 4, No. 3                                                    April 1999
A publication of the East Tennessee Chapter  of the Society of Professional Journalists	Back to SPJ Home Page

 

• April Meeting features HGTV's Kenneth Lowe
• Gibson to speak at Golden Press Card
• Words do hurt
• Rivken comments on prior restraint case
• Briefly noted

Gibson to speak at Golden Press Card Frank Gibson, a former national president of the Society of Professional Journalists, will speak at the Golden Press Card Awards program on May 14 (even though it will be his wedding anniversary). Gibson moved through the ranks as Region 12 director, secretary, treasurer and president-elect. He serves on the Sigma Delta Chi Foundation and is a member of the national strategic planning committee. He is the "father" of SPJ Project Sunshine, designed to call attention to FOI and First Amendment issues in the states, and chairs Tennessee's program. He also is chair of the Freedom of Information Committee of the Tennessee Press Association. Gibson is a Wells Key recipient, highest award given nationally for service to the profession and SPJ.

Gibson

Words do hurt, speakers say

More than we would ever have thought, words have the potential to create discomfort and ill will within our community. This was the message from the speakers at the ETSPJ March meeting, titled “Sticks and Stones.” Panelists representing African-American, gay/lesbian and feminist groups in the community, as well as guests in the audience, spoke about how insensitive remarks damage relations among diverse groups. Speakers were Nancy Mott, a counselor in private practice and convenor for “Integrity Knoxville,” a gay and lesbian Episcopal ministry; Dr. Claudia Milstead, representing the Knoxville chapter of the National Organization for Women; Cassandra McGee, public relations director of the Knoxville Area Chamber Partnership and former reporter for WBIR-TV; and Add Seymour, Jr., Knoxville News-Sentinel staff writer and columnist. Family values “The term ’family values’ probably doesn’t mean gay and lesbians,” Mott said. “Many words trivialize what we are about, such as ‘lifestyle’ and ‘homosexual persuasion.’” “Those who wish to discriminate often try to undercut us and what we are about by saying, ‘You want special rights.’ The term “’special rights’ is irritating,” she said. Mott added that the slant of stories dealing with gay and lesbian issues is frequently one of normal versus abnormal. Even gays and lesbians themselves have difficulty finding words to describe their relationships, Mott said. The terms--husband, wife, significant other, companion--are all problematic in some way or another. Feminist Milstead, speaking about how words come to have negative connotations, said that many people will not admit they are feminists because the word has acquired other meanings, particularly those of male bashing and militancy. “Feminists are people who believe that women should have social and economic equality with men,” she explained. Milstead said that feminists are opposed to words that denigrate women, but that the word “woman” is a perfectly good one. If you are going to say “lady,” then you should refer to men as “gentlemen.” Milstead talked about how certain words seem to be used in only one way. “Alleged” always seems to be used in front of “rape,” she noted. Milstead summed up her message to the audience: “We want dignity and fairness for everyone. Be our partner in that.” Rebel “Recognize the power of words and your responsibility to get them right,” McGee said. She explained that the terms “black,” “African-American,” and “person of color” are ok with her. McGee spoke about recent protests concerning the use of the term “rebel” and the symbol of the Confederate flag at Maryville High School, saying that rebel means the Civil War to her—blacks versus whites. This is divisive. Several members of the audience echoed these sentiments and mentioned the killing of James Byrd, Jr., in Jasper, Texas. They expressed dismay at the insensitivity of some people about this crime. Seymour said that he gets calls about his column from people who say he harps too much on race and the race problem. His main reason for getting into journalism, he said, was “to confront racial issues.” “I’m happy we’re being able to talk about culture and race, but we haven’t gotten as far as we should have,” Seymour concluded.

Lawyer comments on prior restraint suit

Note: The following was written by Dean Rivken, who filed a friend-of-of-the-court brief for ETSPJ. This was in association with The Knoxville-News Sentinel’s attempt to halt a judge’s order prohibiting the use of information about how much the court-appointed lawyers for Thomas D. Huskey had charged for their fees and expert witnesses. The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals rested on tangled procedural ground without ever reaching the merits of the First Amendment claims that challenged the constitutional validity of the prior restraint issued by the trial court. Essentially the Court held that the absence from the record of the time sheets and accompanying entries concerning legal work performed by the attorneys for Huskey prevented the Court from determining what exactly was “restrained.” I believe that counsel for both sides thought that the Court had access to this data, but the Court held that it had not formally been made part of the record. Consequently, the News-Sentinel’s appeal was dismissed. There are intimations in the Court’s decision that it may not have been too sympathetic to the First Amendment claim based on attorney-client privilege. This latter part of the decision is worth reading for its potential impact in future First Amendment cases although the unique facts of this case and its twisted procedural posture drastically limit any potential precendential value that may be claimed coming from this decision. From my current understanding, the News-Sentinel has decided not to appeal the decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court. This seems a sound decision, given the posture of the case. What further action is appropriate in the trial court to lift the prior restraint is an interesting question. A strong argument can be made that the prior restraint is now moot since the trial is over. Any harm that speculatively may have flowed from the disclosure of information on the time sheets is now inconsequential since the lawyers have already tried the case and “shown their hands.” The retrial is a new ballgame, and I’m confident that the time records will not be disclosed in the manner they were in the past. In the long run, in my view, very little damage to First Amendment disclosure will come from this unique case. The constitutional principles of Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart remain in full force, and any future prior restraint will be subject to these demanding standards. In the end, the Huskey case may enter the annals of Ripley’s Believe It or Not, but should not impede the vigilant efforts of the media to ensure open government.

Briefly Noted

• The time to nominate officers and board members for 1999-2000 is near. If you would like to serve in any of the positions, contact Georgiana Vines at 521-1822 or send e-mail to vines@knews.com.
• New members are Larry Aldridge, executive editor of The Daily Times in Maryville and Fatima Hyder, copy editor and paginator at The Knoxville News-Sentinel.