Com 530 Law and Ethics

Included is a brief presentation that covers precautions against appropriation, especially when tasked with the marketing for SNHU.

Within digital communication, there have been a lot of landmark cases that have paved the way and created precedents for future cases and events. Out of all the landmark cases, there are three in specific that come to mind: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964, New York Times Co. v. United States in 1971, and Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire in 1942. These all have impact within digital communication because they laid the precedents for future cases to be able to follow and be upheld. These also helped to shape more of the definition of the right of freedom of speech and the specific protections that the Constitution may provide to media professionals such as journalists and reporters.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was concerning the New York Times for publishing an advertisement to donate on behalf of Martin Lither King Jr. due to perjury charges (Oyez). The advertisement in itself had small factual inaccuracies, and while it did not name Public Safety Commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, Sullivan still sent in a request for the New York Times to retract the information (Oyez). The New York Times then refused and had a libel suit filed against them, as well as a group of African American ministers that were also mentioned within the advertisement (Oyez). Since Sullivan was considered to be a public figure, it was not enough to just show that the statement was false for the advertisement to be liable for defamation or libel. He needed to also show that the statement was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the false information (Oyez).

This created the conclusion of “actual malice” which specifies any libel or defamatory statements for public figures. These public figures can span anywhere from government authorities, celebrities, professional athletes, leaders of corporations or businesses and any individuals that are essential people within controversial subjects that are covered by the media (Digital Media Law Project, n/d). This impacts the Internet, social media, and digital communication as a whole for public figures like celebrities that are very much within the spotlight. Now, public figures need to prove more than just the false statement, but it still means that media professionals need to be careful within publishing content that are accurate, or if false and about a public figure, they need to make sure they have tried to do their due diligence to ensure that they’re not just writing false information to be able to publish something.

Within New York Times Co. v. United States, The New York Times published front-page articles that covered sensitive information from the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers, originally called the “Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force,” were sent in by Daniel Ellsberg and indicated private information that needed security clearance (History.com, 2011). Since the New York Times published the stories about the administration of John F. Kennedy, the U.S. Department of Justice had a temporary restraining order and argued that it was detrimental to national security to release the papers and make the information more widely known (History.com, 2011). The Washington Post helped The New York Times to fight for the permission and right to publish the information. The U.S. Government then failed to show and prove that there truly was harm to national security and that the New York Times was justified due to the First Amendment which included Freedom of Speech and Press (The Encyclopedia Britannica, 2017). This case helps to guide communication professionals while creating messages. It shows that the government cannot just silence their reports as long as the actions are legal and do not immediately harm national security. With credibility and backed up sources, the information can be published such as interviews from veterans as long as it doesn’t directly reveal sensitive and private information like positions and responses used by the government that could impact national security.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire occurred in 1941 where Walter Chaplinsky, a Jehovah Witness member, handed out pamphlets in Rochester, New York and made remarks on other religious organizations. His remarks were so critical on the other religions that individuals gathered together and began to inconvenience the city area. Chaplinsky was then taken away to a local police station but did not stop his statements there. He then had offensive comments to the authorities and was convicted under New Hampshire law which forbade “… any offensive, derisive, or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, or call him by any offensive or derisive name (Cornell University Law School, n/d). Chaplinsky challenged that it infringed his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights within the Constitution. This created the Fighting Words Doctrine.

The Fighting Words Doctrine states that “the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances (Hudson, 2003). It instead set aside portions of speech such as the “lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words” (Hudson, 2003) since they tend to “incite an immediate breach of the peace”. This, even though it was well before the digital era of communication, still has an impact on media professionals since it bars them from creating and spreading material that could contain fighting words that will not be protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

For best guidelines, media professionals should ensure that they avoid “lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words” (Hudson, 2003). By avoiding these words, they can ensure that their communication will avoid offending their readers or followers but still be able to provide information about events factually and accurately. Another best guideline is checking authority. By checking authority, one will be able to see how accurate a source may be on the events. By using credible sources, it helps to reduce the chance for libel or defamation since the information reported will be checked into. Also, by checking into sources, it also helps to reduce actual malice from most cases with public figures since the company or the media professional would check their information and publish the most accurate information that they could find about the event or item that they are reporting upon. Finally, another best practice is to report the honest truth and be unbiased in what one is reporting. For instance, reporting the truth on any news story ensures that media professionals are providing information to the public regardless of what their own take on it may be. Especially within censorship, if reporters didn’t publish the Pentagon Papers, the public would not have known about the assassination of Vietnamese President Ngo Dihn Diem and other classified information. Reporters and all media professionals should just report on any relevant story that provides factual information to the public.

Looking around, there are so many people connected within today’s fast paced environment through their various social media platforms. According to a Pew Research Center study in 2016, “nearly eight-in-ten online Americans (79%) now use Facebook, more than double the share that uses Twitter (24%), Pinterest (31%), Instagram (32%) or LinkedIn (29%) (Greenwood, Perrin & Duggan, 2016). People are not only digitally connected and posting their information such as what they ate, where they ate it, and who they ate it with, but they’re also providing information about their children as well.

Parents typically post birth announcements about a new addition to the family on social media for their friends to like and comment upon. Even before birth, children have their ultrasounds, gender reveals, and name announcements posted that could identify them for the world to see. This only continues during the child’s lifetime as well, from the moment of delivery and all throughout, they are subject to their parents posting various life events that could put their digital image at risk for more than just an embarrassing Facebook post or Instagram selfie.

All the information provided by parents, whether it be grades, health and weight struggles, disciplinary issues, or random quirks are all added up to a general image of the child and can add to their digital identity in the future. All of this information can only add to the risk of media invasions like being hacked, stalked, or even having one’s identity stolen. Often it’s seen as “sharenting, or online sharing about parenting” but the cute moments and jokes could be more of a legal issue soon enough (Steinberg, 2017).

“It’s very rare that parents are sharing maliciously, but they haven’t considered the potential reach or longevity of what is happening with the information they’re posting” (Steinberg, 2017), but a 2010 study found that over 90% of 2-year-olds and 80% of babies had an online presence already (Business Wire, 2010).

The FBI themselves are already encouraging the general public to be wary of the information provided about students and children from Kindergarten to 12^th grade. Within EdTech alone, in late 2017, there was an incident involving cyber actors who had utilized school information technology to hack into various school district servers to access information that allowed them to extort, threaten, and contact students and their families (FBI, 2018). A separate but related occurrence within a data breach ended in student information being posted for sale on the Dark Web (FBI, 2018).

Even in a non-education technology related instance, a mother who had posted a photo of her twins while potty training ended up learning that “strangers accessed the photos, downloaded them, altered them, and shared them on a website commonly used by pedophiles” (Steinberg, 2017). It even impacts their possible financial futures as well. “Through social media, it has never been easier for fraudsters to gather the key pieces of information required to steal someone’s identity,” said Jodie Gilbert, head of digital safety for Barclays (Coughlan, 2018). Because of sharenting, Barclays estimates about 7.4 million more incidents per year of identity fraud by 2030 (Coughlan, 2018).

This is an issue because it brings up two major questions:

What kind of digital profile do parents actually want to start for their children and what will the children think about the information that has been uploaded? Also, are parents aware of their own privacy settings on their own social media profiles and how it may be able to spread among friends, but the whole online world?

From a legal standpoint, there aren’t exactly too many rules or regulations that ban parents from posting a baby picture or a funny anecdote. From a more ethics related standpoint, it increases harm to those children who are having their information be taken from the web and being stored for more malicious purposes, and most instances are without the child’s own knowledge or consent.

Now, there are regulations put into place with children in higher education. One of the major items is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) which prevents disclosure of non-directory information for students at SNHU to anyone who does not have permission to know about them or their accounts. For instance, within any student account, their admissions counselors, advisors, or finance counselors need to verify security information prior to disclosing anything within the account.

These security questions protect the account from being compromised and leaking personal information to other parties, even if it is just the parents of students who ask to know more about their child’s account.

Within social media, even if a student is recognized for their achievements, such as honors like President’s List or Dean’s List, they will not have their grade point average or their student identification number provided for people to see.

“Sharenting” often goes against policies and rights like this provided to children and students as their parents may tend to overshare their information through digital means like social media.

Researchers at New York University were able to see how much ‘personally identifiable’ information can pose risks to children that include stranger danger, unwanted surveillance, and data brokers (Steinberg, n.d.). Some parents are unaware and think of their information as sharing for advocacy of their child’s specific needs while it may be just oversharing. For instance, a mother wrote an essay titled I am Adam Lanza’s Mother where she shared information about her own struggles with raising her son. It was a helpful article that provided insight over childhood mental health, but it also disclosed a lot of private information about her child to the world as well (Steinberg, n.d.).

Another example of how sharing information about a child could be a huge safety risk includes “digital kidnapping” where strangers may be able to take pictures from the web and pretend that children are their own. Basic pictures like first day of school photos in front of a school bus stop could release information such as the child’s name, grade, age, appearance, and even their address based off the location (Steinberg, n.d.).

In one case, Sidis v. F-R Publishing, Sidis was a child prodigy but then wanted to become a private individual later on in his life. He went forward to live more secluded, until the New Yorker ran a story about his life and his whereabouts. Sidis then sued the New Yorker but the Court disagreed as he was a public figure as a child. This was upheld and set a precedent for any child who may have held public attention within their youth (Steinberg, n.d.).

At SNHU, if there is a reason for a student to be protected, whether it be lack of consent for publishing a photo onto their vast social media pages or with specific identification protection needs, their wishes will be carried out.

Especially since SNHU is international, it is important for staff to remember what can be posted for marketing purposes versus what cannot be. All students, before taking part in a commercial or photo shoots for the advertisements to attend SNHU, the students must provide authorization for disclosure of their image or information.

Not only is FERPA in place for students, but there is also the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998 which protects the gathering and disclosure of online data for children under the age of thirteen. While this does not protect older students, this is still important for any website who attempts to obtain children’s information or disclosing any additional information (Steinberg, n.d.).

Within higher education and marketing, is it important to remember privacy information for non-directory information. Our students at SNHU, whether potential, alumni, or current, should all be offered the same privacy protections for their online images.

There have been many precedents that have helped to lead media to where it is now and where it stands within constitutional limits. One of the major precedents was The New York Times Vs. United States case that helped to determine the individuals have freedom to publish information without fear of punishment or censorship from the government.

The New York Times published a series of front-page articles that covered information within the Pentagon Papers, originally known as the “Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force”, beginning on June 13, 1971 (History.com, 2011). The Pentagon Papers were sent to The New York Times by Daniel Ellsberg. These papers indicated that the administration of John F. Kennedy actively helped to overthrew and assassinate South Vietnamese President Ngo Dihn Diem and included even more classified and private information (History.com, 2011). Once it was published, the U.S. Department of Justice got a temporary restraining order and argued that it was detrimental to the national security of the United States.

Washington Post and The New York Times fought for the right to be able to publish the information that was sent to them and the U.S Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Government failed to prove that there was a harm to national security but instead that the publication of the papers was justified under the first Amendment’s protection of freedom of the Press (The Encyclopedia Britannica, 2017).

 As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry- in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of a democratic government” (History.com, 2011). In short, this stated that the government could not specifically hide behind the claim of impacting national security to silence the press about the inner workings and did not justify the claim of prior restraint.

This case can and has guided actions for professional communicators as they create messages in digital settings. It is important to know that as long as the actions are legal and do not immediately harm national security, and it cannot be held as libel or defamation. The information, as long as it can be credible and backed up by sources, should be able to be published for the public to know.

Now, current journalists will be able to still provide information concerning government wrongdoings without fear of being censored or silenced as long as it doesn’t impact the immediate national security. For instance, if a magazine interviewed a veteran who was seriously injured in the war, it would not be considered as leaked and private information as long as they had consent from the individual; however, if a news or media outlet detailed safety responses to terrorist or other attacks or private information like the detailed positions of where American troops are stationed, it would be seen as an impact and not covered by the First Amendment since there is legitimately sensitive information that could harm national security.

Law and ethics are different from each other, but that difference isn’t always the most obvious as they can be defined in multiple ways. Law is simply a set of rules that have been set that we must abide by and regulate what we should do while ethics more so guides what we should do. “Ethics is the study of right and wrong…” that takes from the values of the individual, organization, profession, and society and allows for a choice to define the behavior itself (Moore, Murray, Farrell, Youm, 2017). Either way, they are both important for journalists and media professionals to keep in mind within their line of work.

Law within digital media pertains to things such as the First Amendment, telling people there is the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. It is a regulated rule that allows us to know what can be posted and what is illegal versus legal. Ethics is more so the guidelines to follow. For instance, The Washington Post Publishing Guidelines state “Social networks are no place for the discussion of internal editorial issues such as sourcing, reporting of stories, and decisions to publish or not to publish. The same is true for opinions or information regarding any business activities of The Washington Post Company” (Washington Post, 2011). This is by no means saying it is illegal for an employee to discuss internal items such as sources and the employee will not be thrown into jail for it; however, because it is against the company’s ethics, the employee may be let go for his/her actions.

Both law and ethics is important for media professionals as they guide the professionals to be able to work within their industries and still be trusted by their readers and followers. Without them, journalists may be thrown into jail due to not abiding by the law and unable to continue their reporting, while ethics will keep their morals high and show their loyalty to their audience.

For instance, confidentiality is a great example of both law and ethics. In the case of Judith Miller, while working as a New York Times reporter, she was subpoenaed, refused to testify in court, and was found in contempt. She was sentenced to jail since it was illegal within court but she wanted to keep her ethical standards high (New York Times, 2005). The Times eventually gave her notes to the prosecutor, but Miller only testified after the source agreed to give up his confidentiality.

These are just various ways of how law and ethics impacts the media, but without these rules and guidelines, media professionals would not be able to distinguish themselves from general bloggers and other individual reporters.

Codes of ethics were developed to be able to provide guidelines for journalists, reporters, and other media professionals to stand by and be able to take responsibility of their own actions within the media. They’re not made as rules or laws that need to be followed, so there are no legal implications to breaking them, but it allows for expectations to be set.

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) has their own Code of Ethics that they hold their members up to as far as integrity and ensuring that information that is spread is accurate, fair, and thorough. They have four major principles stated: Seek Truth and Report it, Minimize Harm, Act Independently, and Be Accountable and Transparent (SPJ, 2014). Within Seek Truth and Report it, they ask that all their reporters and journalists provide accurate information regardless of time or format (SPJ, 2014). This will ensure that their sources are credible and if it is incorrect, they will take responsibility for the wrong information while also making sure that they are keeping promises to their sources- especially in the efforts of confidentiality and anonymity (SPJ, 2014). It also ensures that even if the reporter or journalist themselves do not agree with the views, they will still provide an accurate voice for the story of the event or person(s) they are portraying. No falsities or unattributed information will be spread to keep the level of loyalty and accountability high within their own work. Minimize Harm is important in cases of respect, especially with respect for others (SPJ, 2014). It helps to ensure that in sensitive times, they will not be intrusive to families or persons affected by recent events and provide compassion for those affected as well. This portion also holds journalists to update their information when there are updates to be make since the prior information could be incorrect or changed due to the updates themselves. Any articles that they do provide are permanent once posted and there for their audiences to read and reference back to. Act Independently ensures that they are going to avoid bias by not accepting free items or money from any companies or persons that they are reporting on while also avoiding conflicts of interest within their own lives and the stories assigned to them (SPJ, 2014). Finally, Be Accountable and Transparent ensures that they are going to hold themselves to the same standards that they request of from their own peers and colleagues (SPJ, 2014). Any clarifications or corrections will be made promptly and if there is any knowledge of unethical procedures, even in their own organizations, that they will expose it instead of standing by it and letting the individual(s) carry on.

The Institute for Advertising Ethics is similar as well; however, they have eight principles overall. They are as follows: Advertising, public relations, marketing communications, news, and editorial all share a common objective of truth and high ethical standards in serving the public, Advertising, public relations and all marketing communications professionals have an obligation to exercise the highest personal ethics in the creation and dissemination of commercial information to consumers, Advertisers should clearly distinguish advertising, public relations and corporate communications from news and editorial content and entertainment, both online and offline, Advertisers should clearly disclose all material conditions, such as payment or receipt of a free product, affecting endorsements in social and traditional channels, as well as the identity of endorsers, all in the interest of full disclosure and transparency, Advertisers should treat consumers fairly based on the nature of the audience to whom the ads are directed and the nature of the product or service advertised, Advertisers should never compromise consumers’ personal privacy in marketing communications and their choices as to whether to participate in providing their information should be transparent and easily made, Advertisers should follow federal, state and local advertising laws, and cooperate with industry self-regulatory programs for the resolution of advertising practices, Advertisers and their agencies, and online and offline media, should discuss privately potential ethical concerns, and members of the team creating ads should be given permission to express internally their ethical concerns (AAF, n.d.). These all ensure that communications will always be based off of what is right for the consumers and ensure that they will only continue to build the confidence and trust within the institutions.

These are both similar to the ethical principles of journalists created by Ed Lambeth in which he stated that journalists should be truthful, just, free, humane, and a good steward (Moore, 2017). Within Ed Lambeth’s ethics, he wanted to ensure that journalists would stay unbiased, accurate, and competent within their own information while staying fair and respectful of other humans without being swayed in the favor of another entity or person. These ethics all allow journalists and media professionals to maintain and uphold high standards for themselves and their co-workers and partners. This also ensures that they can maintain a strong level of trust from their audiences and readers and continue to build that over time.

Among the various professional codes of ethics that are already being practiced and public, there are similar best practices. Three examples of these best practices include being accurate and right, showing compassion and respect, being accountable and transparent.

With being accurate and right, media professionals should be able to provide correct information to all their audience. Being timely or the first to produce the news does not excuse them from inaccuracy. They must always provide updates or clarification of their news within a timely manner to ensure that their readers are kept up to date. Being accurate will also hold all media professionals to making sure that there is no bias within their reporting by ensuring all sides, especially the minority, are heard despite possibly opposing opinions or viewpoints on the events or topic. This is important to uphold because it will ensure that there is no stereotyping involved within the media reports itself. For instance, Duke University lacrosse players who were reported to have raped a paid stripper at a team party were stereotyped as “hooligans” despite having too little evidence to actually convict the three boys with the rape (Moore, 2017). It had already caused enough issues by tarring their reputations and even cost their coach his job, but also showed how the media took the story without first stopping to check the sources of authority on the matter and sticking to the facts, not just their own assumptions of what may have happened (Moore, 2017).

Showing compassion and respect is important as well when it comes to ethics of media professionals as they want to ensure that their reportings do not harm the persons at stake. It is important to get the most accurate information, but at the same time it is also important to avoid undue intrusiveness within times of distress or discomfort. Private people should be able to control the information about themselves without having their information broadcasted to the audience or readers of various publications and agencies. Also, asking for consent in times like juveniles or victims of sex crimes could be important within highly sensitive topics to show the respect for the individual or individuals affected. For instance, with the Duke lacrosse players, it was a question of whether or not to provide a name to the paid entertainer who claimed to be raped (Moore, 2017). Some organizations provided her name within blogs, while others like The Chicago Sun-Times, Charlotte Observer, and the New York Post identified her after the charges were withdrawn. Some, like The New York Times, Washington Post, Newsday, and the Associated Press never identified her at any point during the proceedings (Moore. 2017). Some deemed it was respectful to leave her name out while the proceedings were ongoing while some deemed it was more important to be fair in naming both the accuser and the accused.

Finally, being accountable and transparent is important within media professionals. This includes updating the information as needed and in as timely of a manner as possible. Since news and media can be fairly permanent for anyone to search for and reference back to, there need to be updates made to stories that have recently unveiled or found new information that could add on or even change the original story. This will also mean that media professionals will disclose any items, including money, provided to them to maintain accuracy. If they were given the items for free to be able to review, it should be disclosed, but if any persons, companies, or agencies provides them with money or items in exchange for a more positive report or swaying their story to seem more favorable, it should be declined. This will also ensure that all media professionals are being held to the same level as their peers. No one is exempt from maintaining the high level of ethics and if there is any unethical work, it should be revealed instead of stood behind or kept silent.

All of these ethical standards keep the news fair without hurting the readers or those being reported on from unjust events or incorrect information. Regardless, these ethical standards are not a set of rules but expectations for media professionals to maintain for the information they provide.

Copyright law is also an important and essential item to know pertaining to digital media. SNHU does not condone any actions or behaviors that plagiarize other works, especially without any credit or citation to the author.

What is a Copyright?

Protection provided to authors of the original works from having their work copied, performed, or used without the his or her consent.

Part of Intellectual Property, copyright law is branch within the legal system that protects the creator(s) of various materials against copyright infringement and unauthorized use.

Most common items protected by copyright law include literary pieces, music, lyrics, movies, computer programs, software, and artistic pieces.

Copyright Law and Internet Use Examples:

• Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) of 1998 was created to assist with reducing copyright infringement and protect original authored works from being utilized illegally (U.S. Copyright Office Summary, 1998).
• DCMA includes “miscellaneous provisions” and “computer maintenance” to “online limited liability” and “phonograms treaties” (U.S. Copyright Office Summary, 1998).
• Not all works will be protected from copyright laws, such as: ideas, principles, brands, domain names, slogans, systems, facts, and other forms of common material (U.S. Copyright Office, 2017).
• “Copyright Act of 1976 prohibits the federal government from copyrighting works it creates” (Moore & Murray, 2018).
• When sharing information or creating content, users must remember that not all works will be protected but not all information on the internet can be used without permission.

Best Practices:

• Seek permission from the copyright holder for repeated or extensive use: this will allow for consent of utilization of the material and will prevent legal issues.
• Ensure and find the correct copyright owner: authors and creators often believe that they own the copyright to their works, but depending on contracts/binding agreements, the copyright may be signed over to the publishers of the material.
• Determine whether or not the material is fair use: if it is covered under fair use, one does not need to seek permission or pay any royalties.
• Cite your sources: this will allow for the original author to be credited with their work and will not seem as though one is claiming to have created the content.
• Restate information within one’s own words: do not directly plagiarize or copy the exact work created .
• When in doubt, do not use it: if one cannot get permission for use or determine whether or not the material in question is covered under fair use, do not include it.

Libel law is necessary for SNHU staff members to understand. With daily responsibilities like posts, campaigns, and reports, marketing staff members must follow these essential tips to avoid taking part in or providing libelous or defamatory information.

Best Tips for Media Use:

What is Libel?

Defamatory statements that are transmitted through written form, like signs, posts, photos, or print that are “injurious to a person’s reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession” (Cornell University Law School, n.d.)

Types of Libel Law:

• Defamation- false statements that intentionally harm the reputation or public image of either an individual, group, or entity.
• Slander- verbal defamation.
• Libel- written defamation.
• Libel per se- defamatory statement considered to be harmful at face value where plaintiffs would not need to prove special damages.
• Libel per Quod- defamatory statements that can only be proven when additional evidence proves harm or special damage was caused.
• Trade Libel- defamatory expressions against a product or business that can be proven as actual malice or an intent to harm a company, business, or organization (Moore and Murray, 2018).

Best Tips and Practices:

1. Report only the truth and ensure sources are credible- Within any situation, wrting the truth will ensure that accurate information is being provided to audiences. By confirming that reliable sources are utilized, one can lessen the risk of information being falsified or biased and thus making the writer untrustworthy.
2. Minimize harm for all parties involved- One should not report about sensitive topics that may make participants or followers embarrassed, conflicted, or harmed when exposed to newly published information, especially within cases of sexual abuse/assault or children.
3. Do not report with emotion- Inputting one’s own emotion within a story may result in false or inaccurate information that may potentially be harmful to parties involved.
4. Be an equal opportunity writer- By covering a variety of topics and reaching out to all parties involved, one can form the whole picture of the events conspired and will “provide justice for all involved in controversial issues and treat[ing] all sources equally” (Patterson & Wilkins, 2019).
5. Never alter a photo or video of an individual or group in a negative aspect- Any alteration to a photo or video can harm one’s reputation due to being taken out of context. It can prove information provided as incorrect and inaccurate, which overall lowers credibility of source.

Examples of libel cases:

1. Sabrina Rubin Erdely wrote a 9,000-word article titled, “A Rape on Campus” alleging that a student had been the victim of a gang rape at a fraternity and was even further victimized due to the university’s indifference, despite knowing the information was false (Moore, 2019).
2. National Inquirer alleged that comedian Carol Burnett had argued in a Washington, D.C. restaurant with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger which was later proved to be false (Moore, 2019).
3. Tatum v.s. Dallas Morning News, Inc.- John and Mary Ann Tatum sued Dallas Morning News, Inc. due to an article that referenced their son’s suicide. While they were not named, the article itself quoted from the obituary and the court deemed that it could be possible that people who were acquainted with the Tatums may believe the article is in referene to them “turning a blind eye to it [mental illness] and may have missed an opportunity to intervene and save his life” (Moore, 2019).
4. “Media law experts have insisted that bloggers be held accountable for the libelous content that they create. Experts also argue that fictional material must be clearly labeled as fiction” (Moore, 2019).

As communication professionals within the 21rst century, it is important to know and understand laws and ethics surrounding media. Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) Digital Media and Marketing team operates worldwide, but specializes in social media and marketing for higher education. Founded in 1932, SNHU began teaching accounting and finance to students, but has since expanded and now includes various majors of study. Marketing is key to gaining and retaining students while also being able to communicate to potential students and alumni around the globe.