Rights vs. Responsibilities: The Supreme Court and the Media

(Hardback)

Publishing Details

Classifications

Physical Properties

Description

In the past 65 years, the United States Supreme Court has outlined, through its decisions, its conceptions of the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. media. Analyzing every Supreme Court media case from 1931 to 1996, this book explores the changes in how the Court has conceived of the media's freedom. Hindman focuses on the educational and political functions of the media, the ethical principles of truth telling, and the conflict between collectivist and individualist interpretations of the First Amendment. The author challenges accepted views in the field, arguing that despite the justices' rhetoric, the Court has treated media freedom as a social goal rather than a right.

Reviews

"Truly original historical analysis, meticulous research, superior analytic skill and exceptional writing make this unique, informative book about media law, ethics and history a significant contribution to these fields and mass communication literature generally."-Hazel Dicken-Garcia Professor, School of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Minnesota
.,.".a wonderful resource, carefully footnoted and meticulously written."-Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
....a wonderful resource, carefully footnoted and meticulously written.-Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
In an astute and detailed historical analysis, Hindman elucidates the principles and behavior the Supreme Court has demanded of the media.... Threading her way through the opinions by 43 justices grappling with the problem of press responsibility over a 65-year period, Hindman concludes that changes in judicial rules reflect changes in the nation's political climate.... The Court has viewed the rules governing media responsibility as policy rather than principle, and media freedom not as an intrinsic right but as a means to a free and just society. Recommended for readers who want to understand the formulation of rules that would maintain a free and responsible press.-Choice
"In an astute and detailed historical analysis, Hindman elucidates the principles and behavior the Supreme Court has demanded of the media.... Threading her way through the opinions by 43 justices grappling with the problem of press responsibility over a 65-year period, Hindman concludes that changes in judicial rules reflect changes in the nation's political climate.... The Court has viewed the rules governing media responsibility as policy rather than principle, and media freedom not as an intrinsic right but as a means to a free and just society. Recommended for readers who want to understand the formulation of rules that would maintain a free and responsible press."-Choice
...".a wonderful resource, carefully footnoted and meticulously written."-Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly

Author Bio

ELIZABETH BLANKS HINDMAN is Assistant Professor of Communication at North Dakota State University.