This online news website is owned and operated by Becky Watts. If you enjoy reading Pike County Times, consider buying an advertisement for your business or sending a donation to support the only free online newspaper in Pike County. Donations can be sent to: The Pike County Times, PO Box 843, Zebulon, Georgia 30295. Click here to donate through PayPal. Thanks for supporting Pike County's only free online newspaper!
By Editor Becky Watts
ZEBULON - HB 734 is entitled the "Ethics in Journalism Act" and is supposed to create journalism ethics board that will govern media entities throughout the state of Georgia. This letter basically walks through my reasons that the legislation is bad and encourages any who are already signed onto this legislation to walk away from it. This legislation is in clear violation of not one but two constitutions, and it deserves a very loud rebuke in the public square.
HB 734 was introduced on the last day of the session in preparation for next year's legislative session. It was sponsored by Andrew Welch of the 110th District (who has since announced his resignation), Ron Stephens of the 164th District, Mark Newton of the 123rd District, Timothy Barr of the 103rd District, Rick Jasperse of the 11th, and Mike Cheokas of the 138th. Even though Rep. Welch is resigning, as long as there are co-sponsors on this legislation it can be considered next year because the legislative cycles consist of two years and 2019 was the first year of the 2019-2020 cycle.
Feel free to send your letter to the editor to editor@pikecountytimes.com, and I’ll be happy to post it on my Letters to the Editor page whether you agree with my thoughts in my Op-Ed or not. My goal is to enable readers to find out why I have been raising cane since the last day of the legislative session and give readers a reason to contact their representatives and state their opinions on this legislation. Those who represent the people under the Gold Dome in Atlanta need to know that we are watching what they do and holding them accountable for their actions. (On a side note, Representative Ken Pullin has advised that he does NOT support this legislation.)
One other note from the editor to those who may be reading about Pike County Times for the first time. I have attended county commission meetings for more than twenty years in an effort to help people in the community know what our representatives were doing and get the community involved on a local level. Pike County Times actually began as a blog on my local county commission and has turned into a newspaper that still has an emphasis on the county commission but also covers news in several surrounding counties. I consider this newspaper to be my reputation and always try to act in a manner that is above reproach because that is how I urge my local, state, and federal representatives to act. My newspaper is different than many of the other journalism entities around the state, but it works here. And I would still end up entangled in this so-called Ethics in Journalism legislation because the definitions are very broad.
HB 734 - Ethics in Journalism Act
You can read this bill in its entirety by clicking on the link at the end of the summary. It is not long and worth the read. These days, it is dangerous to only listen to someone tell about something without checking it out for yourself.
“A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Title 10 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to commerce and trade, so as to create the Journalism Ethics Board; to provide for its composition, duties, and powers; to provide for promulgation of canons of ethics; to provide for rules and regulations; to provide for confidentiality of certain matters; to provide for immunity from civil suit; to provide for an interviewee's access to copies of photographs and audio and video recordings taken by members of the media; to provide for the manner of requesting such items and responding; to provide for sanctions for failure to respond or delays in responding; to provide a short title; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.” http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20192020/HB/734
This AJC article gives a good overall of this legislation that would essentially create a state sanctioned Ethics Board for journalists that would have the power to investigate complaints and sanction those found guilty of violating the canon of ethics that has yet to be written. The Columbia Journalism Review goes even deeper into the legislation and states some of the implications of this bill. Click on each link to read these articles in their entirety on their respective websites.
Pike County Times has obtained permission to post a link to their work so readers can get an overall view of the legislation before reading my thoughts on this bill in an opinion piece entitled “Entreaty for Common Sense.” This piece is written to those who have signed their name as a co-sponsor on this legislation and gives reasons why this legislation is both unnecessary and nothing short of an attack on freedom of the press which is guaranteed by both our national and state constitutions.
Georgia House Republicans file bill to create state Journalism Ethics Board
Courtesy of the Atlanta Journal Constitution
By James Salzer
A group of House Republican lawmakers filed legislation this week to create a state Journalism Ethics Board to develop “canons of ethics” for journalists in Georgia. Georgia House Republicans file bill to create state Journalism Ethics Board
‘Ethics’ Bill Leaves Georgia Journalists on Edge
Courtesy of the Columbia Journalism Review
By Stephen Fowler
In the waning hours of Georgia’s legislative session, between votes on sex trafficking and organ procurement, Republican House Representative and lawyer Andy Welch introduced the Ethics in Journalism Act. Co-sponsored by five other Republican lawmakers, the bill would authorize a board to create new ethical standards that govern journalists’ work, and to sanction journalists who violate them. ‘Ethics’ Bill Leaves Georgia Journalists on Edge
Entreaty for Common Sense
To whom it may concern,
First of all, I am the owner and editor of Pike County Times so this legislation includes me because Article 1 includes a list of terms which are broad enough to encompass anyone who writes about or publishes news of any type. HB 734 is offensive to me as a small-time county news watchdog for many reasons beginning with the Constitution to the United States. I’m going to walk through this legislation from beginning to end to show you why you should remove your name from this legislation and be very vocal about why you are removing your name from it because the public and the media are watching. Feel free to contact me at 770-468-7583, and I’ll be happy to talk through your thoughts on what I’ve written in this letter.
First of all, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Emphasis in bold is my own.) Our state constitution reads in a similar fashion.
Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution of the State of Georgia reads: “Freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed. No law shall be passed to curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” Furthermore, Paragraph 6 reads: “In all civil or criminal actions for libel, the truth may be given in evidence; and, if it shall appear to the trier of fact that the matter charged as libelous is true, the party shall be discharged.” (Emphasis in bold is my own.)
The summary of HB 734 reads as follows: “A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Title 10 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to commerce and trade, so as to create the Journalism Ethics Board; to provide for its composition, duties, and powers; to provide for promulgation of canons of ethics; to provide for rules and regulations; to provide for confidentiality of certain matters; to provide for immunity from civil suit; to provide for an interviewee's access to copies of photographs and audio and video recordings taken by members of the media; to provide for the manner of requesting such items and responding; to provide for sanctions for failure to respond or delays in responding; to provide a short title; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.” (Emphasis in bold is my own.)
The last three paragraphs should be enough to show that this legislation stands in blatant contradiction to the Constitution of the United States and our own Constitution here in the State of Georgia, but just in case these three paragraphs are not enough, I am going to outline more of my objections to this proposed legislation.
Line 29 speaks about a Journalism Ethics Board that “shall be an independent body” with appointments made by the chancellor of the University System of Georgia. Let’s talk about the Board of Regents and the University System of Georgia for a moment. This information comes from www.usg.edu/news/usgfact:
“The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia was created in 1931 as a part of a reorganization of Georgia’s state government. With this act, public higher education in Georgia was unified for the first time under a single governing and management authority. The governor appoints members of the Board to a seven year term and regents may be reappointed to subsequent terms by a sitting governor. Regents donate their time and expertise to serve the state through their governance of the University System of Georgia – the position is a voluntary one without financial remuneration. Today the Board of Regents is composed of 19 members, five of whom are appointed from the state-at-large, and one from each of the state’s 14 congressional districts. The Board elects a chancellor who serves as its chief executive officer and the chief administrative officer of the University System. The Board oversees the public colleges and universities that comprise the University System of Georgia and has oversight of the Georgia Archives and the Georgia Public Library Service.”
“The Chancellor provides leadership in higher education and stewardship of state and University System resources by promoting a statewide perspective on higher education that attends to the current and developing needs of the State, its citizens and students, and relates them effectively to the University System and its institutions. The Chancellor supports the Board of Regents in furthering and achieving its vision for the University System by providing leadership in analyzing, monitoring, and anticipating higher education trends and developments, and by planning strategically for the future of the University System. The Chancellor also serves on the Georgia-based Alliance of Education Agency Heads, a collaborative partnership with the Governor’s office and Georgia’s education agency heads.”
Question number one. Does anything about the above paragraphs show that there is no politics involved in the University System of Georgia? I would argue that there are direct ties to Georgia government and that alone should be enough to make you walk away from this legislation. But if it isn’t, add that to the Constitution of the State of Georgia which obviously wasn’t consulted before this legislation was constructed, and that should be your first and foremost concern with this legislation. If that isn’t enough, I will continue with my entreaty for common sense.
Georgia legislators attempting to create a Journalism Ethics Board is nothing but a smoke screen to cover the fact that some legislators have been offended by what some in the media have written during the past term of this General Assembly. If what was written was libelous, the Speaker of the House and other offended parties could appeal to paragraph 6 of the State Constitution and our courts for relief. Attempting to muzzle the media in general is arrogant and blatantly against both the state and federal constitutions.
Lines 38 through 40 show solicitation of appointments for this so-called Journalism Ethics Board. This gives opportunity for political appointments with the blessing of legislators who have a direct interest in what is written about themselves as well as the legislation that is being presented during the legislative term. That sounds so much better than the comment that I have written on my copy of legislation that reads, “So this board can be stacked with political cronies?”
Then we get to line 66 which reads, “The Journalism Ethics Board may divide itself into panels for purpose of investigations and adjudications.” This smells blatantly political and could very easily turn into a political witch hunt against any media organization that runs afoul of a legislator or their proposed legislation. The media is designed to be a watchdog on local, state, and federal government, but it cannot effectively do its job if there is a board watching its every move for the purpose of “investigations and adjudications.”
But then we get to lines 73 through 76 which show that the legislature is proposing legislation that will fund the daily activities of the members of this board from taxpayer dollars! Why are we creating a board that will cost tax dollars first of all? And how would these members be objective in their investigations and adjudications when the very money that funds them comes from state coffers?
Lines 79-80 seem a waste of time when we already have industry standards that can be upheld through the court system if there is a violation. Developing a “voluntary” accreditation process (lines 83-87) is a farce because this is going to stand for a state sanctioned media watchdog. Who wouldn’t want to curry favor with legislators by being a member of this state sanctioned board? Who wouldn’t want to curb their writing to appeal to those who are acting as watchdogs of the media for the State of Georgia? Please go back and read those last three lines with the correct amount of sarcasm that I have as I write them. And what would the penalty be for refusing to become accredited?
Ethics is always going to be arbitrary or a matter of opinion depending on who holds the reins of power. This is why the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Georgia are so clear when it comes to freedom of the press.
Lines 88-91 are just as much of a farce as the preceding lines. I will say again that ethics is always going to be arbitrary or a matter of opinion depending on who holds the reins of power.
Lines 92-95 show that legislators already know that there is the potential for problems with this legislation. Why else would there be lines written to prevent abuse from out of state residents? And the potential for abuse with state residents is there as well.
Lines 96-97 show that there is absolutely no way that this state sanctioned media watchdog organization can be neutral. Why is there a need for grants, donations, gifts, and other monetary awards for the fulfillment of duties and responsibilities? And how in the world would an organization that accepts money in any form from outside sources be able to ignore those outside sources when a complaint is made? Again, ethics is always going to be arbitrary or a matter of opinion depending on who holds the reins of power. This is a recipe for disaster plain and simple.
The remainder of this document gets worse and worse as it continues. This board is going to make and proclaim its own rules in lines 98-99. Then confidentiality applies in some cases and open records in some but not all others (lines 103-113). What is an incapacity matter and why is a state organization attempting to circumvent open records (line 116-118)? This smacks of government overreach and is nothing more than a blatant attempt to control what the media writes in our entire state.
Line 119 reads, “In cases of emergency, such as when the person under investigation is a danger to society or to the administration of justice…” What in the world? Who gets the privilege of defining who is “a danger to society or to the administration of justice” and how is that NOT going to be political? McCarthyism came to mind as I read this.
But just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse, I read lines 126-131. “The board shall be immune from civil liability for conduct in the course of the official duties of its members” and “Communications to the board and its members relating to journalistic misconduct or incapacity and testimony given in any disciplinary proceeding shall be absolutely privileged and no civil suit predicated thereon shall be instituted or maintained against any complainant, witness, or counsel of either.” How can ANYONE look at these lines and not see the MANY possibilities for abuse by a government sanctioned board with arbitrary ethical standards that gives no recourse to those who are CERTAIN to be abused by this government entity?! The potential for abuse is endless because it sounds like there is no possibility of bringing to light those who would abuse others through wrong doing or false allegations.
The remainder of this document is a recipe to put small media sources out of business and a way to rein in larger media sources so they can “toe the line” for a state sanctioned media watchdog group that isn’t required to abide by current state law. Open Records have specific guidelines for government entities when it comes to my requests, but I wouldn’t be afforded those same guidelines because I get to foot the cost of everything simply because I am a media source in the State of Georgia. And the sanctions on this are more than those that could possibly be given if there is a current violation of open records!
Why should those requesting information have the opportunity for a private right of action but the board shall be immune from civil liability? Why are those being interviewed not bringing their own recorder to an interview to ensure that they are protecting themselves thus negating the need for this legislation in the first place? And why would legislators sign their names as sponsors on a legislation that is in direct contradiction to our state and federal Constitutions?
This legislation should be a cause for alarm to anyone who reads it. There is a reason that the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Georgia are so clear about freedom of the press. Without freedom of the press, the press becomes an extension of the government—and that is not freedom at all.
Sincerely,
Becky Watts, Owner and Editor of www.PikeCountyTimes.com