Category Archives: Media Law

Fact checking a lie

This is an example of just how far right-wing disinformation will go. According to the narration in this video:  “The Holocaust stuff was about them (the New York Times)  not wanting to be seen as a Jewish-owned  newspaper, because this was America in the 1940s, there was a lot of antisemitism. They were afraid it would jeopardize their position in the market, and for them, that was just something they would not sacrifice, even for the truth. They actually forbade the word “Jew” in their news reports during that period.”  

That seemed pretty far fetched on the face of it, so we fact checked the claim that the word “Jew” could not show up in the New York Times. In fact, using a full text ProQuest database search of the Times,  for the words  “Jews or Jewish” in the date range 1933 – 1946, we found 95,085 articles over 5114 days (14 years), for an average of  18.6  articles mentioning Jews or Jewish people  per day.

The media “expert” in the video also says that the New York Times w0n Pulitzer prizes during World War II for pro-Nazi coverage.  In fact, checking the roster of Pulitzers from 1942 through 1946, there are no prizes for the Times coverage of the European war. There are two for  Pacific war coverage, and one in 1941 for general coverage of the emerging war. Astonishingly, there are none for “pro-Nazi” coverage.

So yes, this Prager video is promoting outright lies with the intention of portraying the New York Times as antisemitic and racist.

Also See: 
American Public Opinion and the Holocaust (Gallup polls)
Samantha Bee and Prager U   “Prager U is as much of a real college as Monsters University.”

A silent movie and the right to be forgotten


By Bill Kovarik  (for The Conversation

In 1915, Gabrielle Darley killed a New Orleans man who had tricked her into a life of prostitution. She was tried, acquitted of murder and within a few years was living a new life under her married name, Melvin. Then a blockbuster movie, “The Red Kimono,” splashed her sensational story across America’s silver screens.

The 1925 film used Darley’s real name and details of her life taken from transcripts of the murder trial. She sued for invasion of privacy and won.

In deciding in favor of Darley, a California court said that people have a right to rehabilitation. “We should permit [people] to continue in the path of rectitude rather than throw [them] back into a life of shame or crime,” the court said. It is a sentiment that is harder to put into practice today, when information is much more readily available. Nonetheless, policymakers and media outlets are looking at the issue.

As a scholar of media history and law, I see Darley’s story as more than an interesting slice of legal and cinematic history. Her case provides an early example of how private people struggle to escape their pasts and how the idea of privacy is linked to rehabilitation.

Continue reading

Media, antisemitic lies and censorship in 1938

By Bill Kovarik
Published in The Conversation, Jan. 15, 2021
Creative Commons license for non-profit republication.

In speeches filled with hatred and falsehoods, a public figure attacks his enemies and calls for marches on Washington. Then, after one particularly virulent address, private media companies close down his channels of communication, prompting consternation from his supporters and calls for a code of conduct to filter out violent rhetoric.

Sound familiar? Well, this was 1938, and the individual in question was Father Charles E. Coughlin, a Nazi-sympathizing Catholic priest with unfettered access to America’s vast radio audiences. The firms silencing him were the broadcasters of the day.

As a media historian, I find more than a little similarity between the stand those stations took back then and the way Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have silenced false claims of election fraud and incitements to violence in the aftermath of the siege on the U.S. Capitol – noticeably by silencing the claims of Donald Trump and his supporters.

A radio ministry

Coughlin’s Detroit ministry had grown up with radio, and, as his sermons grew more political, he began calling President Franklin D. Roosevelt a liar, a betrayer and a double-crosser. His fierce rhetoric fueled rallies and letter-writing campaigns for a dozen right-wing causes, from banking policy to opposing Russian communism. At the height of his popularity, an estimated 30 million Americans listened to his Sunday sermons.

Continue reading

A laughable attempt to muzzle the press

The last time a sitting president sued a newspaper for libel, laughter broke out on the floor of the US Senate as a clerk read the news.

That was December 15, 1908, and the president was Teddy Roosevelt. He was said to be  “furious” that the New York World  newspaper linked him to corruption over the Panama Canal. Teddy ordered federal attorneys to file criminal libel suits against newspapers carrying the story all over the country. Democrats considered it to be outrageous, and one US attorney resigned in protest rather than prosecute for libel.

New York World publisher Joseph Pulitzer said in response:  “He cannot muzzle the World.”  (See Pulitzer’s Reply Dec. 16, 1908)

Roosevelt’s lawsuit,  US v Press Publishing,  is today considered the “last gasp” of seditious libel. The US Supreme Court ruling  in 1911 was only two pages, and it didn’t even bother to touch on the merits of the case. Instead, the court simply sustained an objection by the newspaper that “the court has no jurisdiction in this case, because there is no statute of the United States authorizing the prosecution.”

The case was thought to be a First Amendment landmark at the time, but it is barely remembered in communications law textbooks today.  After all, what sitting president would lower himself to file such a suit?  Even outright allegations of murder did not tempt President Bill Clinton to wield that cudgel against critics like Jerry Falwell. What president would be so foolish as to sue for libel just because a newspaper published a disagreeable opinion?

Which brings us to Donald Trump, who sued the New York Times  on Feb. 26, 2020, and the Washington Post, on March  3, 2020, for daring to publish an apparently disagreeable opinion about Trump’s relationship with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. In the suit, Trump claimed that the Times knowingly published the supposedly false charge that there was a “quid pro quo” with the Russians in return for  their help in the 2016 election.  (The plaintiff’s petition can be read here.) 

This “quid pro quo” was described in  an op-ed written by former New York Times editor Max Frankel and published March 27, 2019.  In the op-ed, Frankel rejected  small concerns about “collusion” with Russia in the Trump campaign. The much larger issue, he said, involved the relationship between Trump and Putin.

Continue reading