Policy Liberalism, Public Opinion, and Strength of Journalist’s Privilege in the American States

Q2 Social Sciences First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2015-01-02 DOI:10.1080/21689725.2015.1019285
Casey Carmody, D. Pritchard
{"title":"Policy Liberalism, Public Opinion, and Strength of Journalist’s Privilege in the American States","authors":"Casey Carmody, D. Pritchard","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2015.1019285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Laws protecting newsgathering vary among US states, yet comparative studies of state press law are rare. Focusing on journalist’s privilege, this study hypothesized that policy liberalism and public support for journalistic confidentiality would predict the strength of a state’s journalist’s privilege. The hypotheses involving policy liberalism and public opinion were supported. The study’s findings suggest that states with higher levels of policy liberalism tend to create journalistic confidentiality protections, which may serve as a mechanism for government accountability. This finding also supports previous research suggesting that policy liberalism plays an important role in state newsgathering laws.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":"31 - 43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2015.1019285","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First Amendment Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2015.1019285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Laws protecting newsgathering vary among US states, yet comparative studies of state press law are rare. Focusing on journalist’s privilege, this study hypothesized that policy liberalism and public support for journalistic confidentiality would predict the strength of a state’s journalist’s privilege. The hypotheses involving policy liberalism and public opinion were supported. The study’s findings suggest that states with higher levels of policy liberalism tend to create journalistic confidentiality protections, which may serve as a mechanism for government accountability. This finding also supports previous research suggesting that policy liberalism plays an important role in state newsgathering laws.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政策自由主义、公众舆论与美国记者特权的力量
美国各州保护新闻采编的法律各不相同,但对各州新闻法的比较研究却很少。本研究以记者特权为重点,假设政策自由主义和公众对新闻保密的支持可以预测一个国家记者特权的强度。涉及政策自由主义和公众舆论的假设得到支持。研究结果表明,政策自由主义程度较高的州倾向于建立新闻保密保护,这可能是政府问责的一种机制。这一发现也支持了先前的研究,即政策自由主义在国家新闻采采法中起着重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
First Amendment Studies
First Amendment Studies Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: First Amendment Studies publishes original scholarship on all aspects of free speech and embraces the full range of critical, historical, empirical, and descriptive methodologies. First Amendment Studies welcomes scholarship addressing areas including but not limited to: • doctrinal analysis of international and national free speech law and legislation • rhetorical analysis of cases and judicial rhetoric • theoretical and cultural issues related to free speech • the role of free speech in a wide variety of contexts (e.g., organizations, popular culture, traditional and new media).
期刊最新文献
The digital citizen as technoliberal subject: The politics of constitutive rhetoric in the European Union’s Digital Decade The Supreme Court’s rhetorical construction of home On the censoring of Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb An accounting from Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb The rhetoric of democracy in United States Senate campaign debates
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1