future-of-journalism

ORIGINAL URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/02/MNGNSK9MJ71.DTL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://citmedia.org/blog/2006/08/18/legal-support-for-citizen-journalist/

Cameraman jailed for not yielding tape

JOURNALISTS' RIGHTS? 'Every person ... has to give information to the
grand jury if the grand jury wants it,' judge tells S.F. freelancer

Bob Egelko San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 2, 2006

A freelance journalist and political activist was sent to federal prison Tuesday and could be held for nearly a year after refusing a grand jury's demand that he turn over unaired videotapes of a 2005 anarchist demonstration in which protesters clashed with San Francisco police.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup found Josh Wolf, 24, of San Francisco in contempt of court for failing to comply with a subpoena that the federal grand jury issued Feb. 1. Alsup rejected Wolf's claim that a reporter has a right to withhold unpublished material, and he said federal prosecutors were seeking the videos for a legitimate investigation into a possible crime -- the attempted burning of a San Francisco police car. "Every person, from the president of the United States down to you and me, has to give information to the grand jury if the grand jury wants it,'' the judge said at the end of a 2 1/2-hour hearing in federal court in San Francisco.

Wolf and his lawyers contend that federal authorities are less interested in the alleged arson than they are in disrupting the legitimate political activities of anarchist groups. Forcing Wolf to turn over his videotapes is a way of keeping the media from reporting dissidents' point of view, they said.

Unless a journalist's right to withhold unpublished and unaired material is recognized, "we're not going to have Mr. Wolf or any reporters covering protests," attorney Jose Luis Fuentes told Alsup. "Confidential sources are not going to come forward. They (journalists) are going to be viewed as investigative arms of the government."

Wolf was taken into custody by U.S. marshals after the hearing and was sent to the federal prison in Dublin. He could remain there until the grand jury's term expires in July 2007 unless he turns over the tapes.

Wolf describes himself on his Web site as an activist and anarchist. The videos sought by the grand jury were of a demonstration that Wolf shot on July 8, 2005, in the Mission District, in which a few hundred people marched in protest against the Group of Eight economic summit that was taking place in Scotland.

A police officer suffered a fractured skull in a confrontation with a splinter group of marchers, several store windows were broken, and someone allegedly tried to set a police car on fire by sliding a mattress underneath and setting it ablaze.

Wolf posted some of the videos on his Web site and sold that footage to local television stations. None of the footage showed any crimes being committed. It was posted Tuesday evening at www.joshwolf.net/grandjury. Federal prosecutors demanded the rest of the tapes, saying they might contain evidence of attempted arson of a police cruiser -- which Wolf says they do not. Trying to burn a police car would constitute a federal crime, federal authorities argued, because the Police Department receives money from Washington.

Citing the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, federal prosecutors have never explained their interest in the possible burning of a police car, which local authorities typically would investigate. No local charges have ever been filed in connection with that incident.In ordering Wolf sent to prison, Alsup said the case had nothing to do with a journalist's confidential sources.

"There's no Deep Throat out there trying to protect his identity," the judge said. Noting that the events Wolf photographed all took place in public, Alsup asked, "Where does Mr. Wolf get to decide what will or will not be made public, when he never made a promise to anyone?"

Alsup was a Supreme Court law clerk when the court ruled in 1972 that the First Amendment does not shield reporters from having to testify before a grand jury. On Tuesday, he acknowledged that some federal courts have since recognized certain legal protections for journalists. But he said none of those cases involved grand jury investigations, in which the courts have repeatedly upheld demands for testimony. Wolf's case, Alsup said, is "a slam dunk for the government."

Alsup denied defense requests to free Wolf on bail or stay the case for 10 days while Wolf challenges the contempt order in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Carlos Villareal, executive director of the San Francisco chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, said Wolf had told his attorneys before being taken to jail that he was "thinking about it, the implications, the costs and benefits" of continuing to withhold the videos but had not changed his mind.

California, like most states, has a shield law allowing reporters to keep their sources confidential. The law, one of the nation's strongest, protects journalists from being held in contempt of court for refusing to identify confidential sources or produce unpublished material unless the information is needed to preserve a defendant's right to a fair trial and is unavailable elsewhere.

There is no federal shield law, however, and the state law does not apply in federal court. The Bush administration has argued that reporters are adequately protected by Justice Department guidelines, which state that subpoenas against journalists must be approved by the attorney general and should be issued only after prosecutors have pursued other sources of information. But when Wolf's lawyer said the government had failed to show that it followed those standards in his case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Finigan argued -- and Alsup agreed -- that private citizens have no right to enforce the guidelines.

The case arises against a backdrop of increasing legal action against reporters.

The New York Times' Judith Miller was jailed for 85 days last year for refusing to reveal the source of information that Valerie Wilson, the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, was a CIA agent. The administration is investigating leaks to the Times and the Washington Post and won a federal appeals court ruling in New York on Tuesday allowing prosecutors to examine telephone records of Miller and another Times reporter. Valerie Wilson is often referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame.

On Friday, another federal judge in San Francisco is scheduled to consider the Justice Department's request for contempt-of-court orders against two Chronicle reporters, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, for refusing to reveal their confidential sources of grand jury testimony. The reporters published articles and a book about steroids in sports, based in part on closed-door testimony by the Giants' Barry Bonds and other athletes.

"Over the last five years, or even more, federal courts have been less and less likely to find a First Amendment justification for a reporter's privilege," said Gregg Leslie, legal defense director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "That has made prosecutors more likely to resort to subpoenas. "Judges aren't aware of the role reporters play in public controversies," Leslie said. "In these times, courts want to know who committed crimes."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Journalists behind bars

Journalists who have been jailed or detained in recent years for refusing
to disclose information to the courts:

-- Brian Karem, San Antonio. TV reporter subpoenaed by defense and prosecution in 1990; jailed for 13 days when he refused to reveal names of people who arranged a jailhouse interview. Released when sources came forward.

-- Libby Averyt, Corpus Christi, Texas. Newspaper reporter subpoenaed for information in 1990 about jailhouse interview. Jailed over a weekend; released when judge convinced she would never turn over the unpublished information sought.

-- Tim Roche, Stuart, Fla. Newspaper reporter subpoenaed in 1990 to reveal source for leaked court order that was supposed to have been sealed. Served 18 days for criminal contempt.

-- Sid Gaulden, Schuyler Kropf, Cindi Scoppe, Andrew Shain, Columbia, S.C. Newspaper reporters jailed for eight hours in 1991 when they refused to turn over information from unpublished conversations with a state senator on trial for corruption. Released for appeal, which they lost, but trial was over.

-- Felix Sanchez and James Campbell, Houston. Newspaper reporters locked in judge's chambers for several hours in 1991 after refusing to stand in the back of courtroom and identify possible eyewitnesses to a crime. Appeal successful.

-- Lisa Abraham, Warren, Ohio. Newspaper reporter jailed for nearly a month in 1994 for refusing to testify before a state grand jury about a jailhouse interview.

-- Bruce Anderson, editor of Anderson Valley Advertiser in Boonville (Mendocino County), jailed on contempt charges for 13 days in 1996 for refusing to turn over original letter to the editor received from a prisoner. He tried to turn over the letter after a week, but judge refused to believe it was the original because it was typed. After another week, judge accepted that the letter was the original.

-- David Kidwell, reporter for the Miami Herald. Found in criminal contempt in 1996 and sentenced to 70 days for refusing to testify for prosecution about a jailhouse interview. Served 14 days before being released on own recognizance after filing federal habeas corpus petition.

-- Timothy Crews, Sacramento Valley Mirror editor and publisher in Red Bluff, served a five-day sentence in 2000 for refusing to reveal his confidential sources in a story involving the sale of an allegedly stolen firearm by a California Highway Patrol officer.

-- Vanessa Leggett, Houston. Author researching "true crime" book jailed for 168 days by federal judge in 2001 for refusing to disclose her research and the identities of her sources to a federal grand jury investigating a homicide. Leggett was freed only after the term of the grand jury expired. A subsequent grand jury indicted a suspect, and Leggett may again be subpoenaed during his murder trial.

-- Jim Taricani, Providence, R.I. In February 2001, television reporter aired portion of a videotape showing a Providence official accepting a bribe from an undercover FBI informant. The tape was sealed evidence in an FBI investigation into corruption by city officials. Taricani refused to reveal his source, was found in criminal contempt in 2004, and served four months of home confinement. His TV station paid $85,000 in fines.

-- Judith Miller, New York Times reporter jailed for 85 days in 2005 for refusing to testify against news sources in the investigation into leaks of a CIA operative's name by White House officials. Released when she agreed to provide limited testimony to the grand jury about conversations with vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby without revealing her other sources. Libby gave his permission first.

Source: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com .

----------------------------------------------------------------

This article above is copyrighted material, the use of which may not have specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

// posted by newshare @ 10:34 PM

ORIGINAL URL:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jschool5aug05,1,3825578.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Journalism Graduates Get Good News on Jobs Beat

By James Rainey,
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 5, 2006

Newsrooms across the country may echo with gloom and doom, but journalism school graduates report better job prospects and a more positive outlook than at any time since the 2000 peak of the dot-com boom, according to a study released Friday.

More than 62% of those receiving bachelor's degrees in journalism in 2005 said they had found a job by late last year, up from 56% in 2003, according to the survey by the James M. Cox Jr. Center for International Mass Communication Training and Research. The center is based at the University of Georgia's Grady College.

"These students see web development, they see podcasting, they see all these technological developments as the way to the future," said Lee Becker, a journalism professor who oversees the survey. "They are not obsessed with worrying about the fate of one segment of the media." In fact, just less than 56% of the 2,754 graduates who responded to the Cox Center survey said they had read a newspaper "yesterday," compared with 82% in 1994.

The newspaper industry has struggled with declining revenues and job reductions, with more than 2,000 editorial positions cut from 2001 to 2005, according to the Newspaper Assn. of America. Yet 8.6% of those receiving bachelor's degrees in journalism last spring took jobs at newspapers or wire services, the most significant hiring in five years, the survey reported.

The balance of graduates who found work did so in television, radio, the Internet, public relations, marketing and related fields. Nearly 60% of all the journalism graduates with bachelor's degrees were able to stay in the communications field, compared with less than half who found journalism or communications jobs two years earlier.

"The job market seems well on its way to recovery from the dramatic declines in 2001 through 2003," the study said, although researchers found employment in the field still was below 2000's levels.

Eric Berkowitz, who got his graduate degree from the USC Annenberg School for Communication in May, said that members of the class of 2006 have mixed feelings about their profession. "There was a certain feeling that we arrived late, that the period of great newspapering has passed and we are going to have to work for websites or do something else to make it work," said Berkowitz, 47, a lawyer who soon will start an editing job at the Los Angeles Daily Journal, a legal newspaper. "But at the same time, a lot of us are excited about that. In a sense, a loss for some may become an opportunity for others."

The expansion of Internet news outlets has created opportunities. About three in 10 of those leaving undergraduate and graduate journalism schools last year reported that at least part of their job responsibilities included writing or editing stories for the web. A year earlier, the ratio was about two in 10.

Laurie Kawakami, who also received her master's degree from USC this year, said she was thrilled to have a job as a news assistant at the New York Times' website. She is "enamored" of the web, she said, and enjoys the chance to enhance print stories with video and audio clips. "I feel like this is a career path here for me. I don't see it as interim or something," Kawakami said. "I think there is a real career path in online journalism."

Michael Parks, director of the journalism program at Annenberg, said the school's students have been required for several years to take courses across disciplines . print, broadcast and online. That serves to reinforce the tendencies of a multimedia-savvy generation, Parks said. Though they may find work in new technologies, fledgling reporters, editors and producers share a common fate with their predecessors: modest pay.

The $29,000 median salary of 2005 journalism graduates is nearly $2,000 below other liberal arts graduates. By contrast, computer science graduates earned nearly $51,000 and accounting graduates, earned more than $46,000.

Like generations of journalists before him, Berkowitz, who spent 20 years as a lawyer, said he was willing to give up higher income for the rewards of the profession. "The money is just hideous in journalism," Berkowitz said. "But it's much more fun to cover issues from perspective of a journalist than from the position of an advocate."

*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Rainey can be reached at james.rainey@latimes.com .
----------------------------------------------------------------

This article above is copyrighted material, the use of which may not have specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

// posted by newshare @ 10:21 PM

"The web will be our breaking-news platform," says Denver Post Editor Greg Moore says, "and the newspaper will be our platform for exclusive reporting and stories that really focus on telling people what happens next."

http://www.westword.com/Issues/2006-08-17/news/message.html

The Post is breaking news on the web first.
By Michael Roberts
Westword Magazine

Article Published Aug 17, 2006

Last month, staffers at the Denver Post stumbled on a scoop. Brewski namesake and 2004 Republican senatorial candidate Pete Coors had been busted for driving under the influence in late May while motoring home from a wedding reception. Facts were pinned down, and the article was completed on July 13 -- and had the Post followed procedure that's been in place for years, the piece's online release would have been coordinated with distribution of the next morning's newspaper. But times are changing, and Post editor Greg Moore believes his paper needs to change with them. For that reason, he says, "We posted it on the web as soon as we got it confirmed."

Not everyone at the Post agreed with his decision. Moore notes that "some people internally wanted to hold the story until the next day," and he acknowledges that the early posting alerted editorial types at the Rocky Mountain News, the Post's longtime rival, about what they'd missed. "The Rocky got their story up sometime later," he says, and readers who looked at the newsprint editions of the Rocky and the Post on July 14 had no way of knowing who'd actually won the race. Nevertheless, Moore feels, "We got credit for breaking that exclusive story," adding, "My feeling is, if you have an hour when you have the story alone, you have to use that hour wisely."

This view is shared by Mark Cardwell, the Post's new managing editor for digital media and the man Moore has charged with leading what he refers to as the paper's "online revolution." In Cardwell's opinion, it's unrealistic to think that "the Post is only competing against the Rocky Mountain News. People have more than one way to get their news, so the competition is bigger than just another newspaper -- a lot bigger." Thanks to the multiplicity of online news providers, so-called old-media enterprises like the Post "are really in a fight for their lives," says Cardwell, who previously performed digital chores for a couple of huge operations, ABC News and the Associated Press. "But that's what makes it interesting. I'd much rather be in the middle of a fight than on the sidelines."

Such aggressiveness is refreshing given the tone of many newspaper types these days. More people than ever are reading material from the Post and other dailies across the country. But because a growing percentage are doing so online -- where ad revenues are still rather puny -- instead of subscribing to physical products, profits are falling, layoffs are becoming commonplace, and plenty of insiders are spending time complaining about the unfairness of it all instead of trying to figure out how to survive the historic transition now under way.

Moore, however, is determined to be proactive, and to that end, he created an online task force to come up with suggestions about how to proceed. (Among its members were managing editor Gary Clark, Sunday-edition chieftain Kevin Dale, and Howard Saltz, a former Post online exec who was recently appointed vice president for content development in the interactive department at the Post's Dean Singleton-fronted parent company, MediaNews Group.) The report that resulted put heavy emphasis on creating a truly high-tech newsroom, defined as a place where journalists "have the capability and training to transmit text, pictures and video from any location." But it also imagined a culture that "appreciates getting information to readers when it happens, not just when the print cycle rolls around every 24 hours."

The report's authors conceded that there will be "fewer print exclusives" under this methodology, but Moore feels the tradeoff is worth it. In a memo announcing a meeting about web issues that took place the day before l'affaire Coors went public, he wrote, "To win in this new environment, we need a website that is known by consumers of news and information for being on top of developments. That means adopting a publish-on-the-web-first mentality. The idea of holding everything until the next morning is a losing proposition."

In addition to philosophical adjustments, the Post plans concrete action. Cardwell is overseeing a major redesign of the Post website that should be up and running sometime this fall. The site is being developed to accommodate the supersized computer screens that are growing in popularity, and it aims to offer or improve features outlined by the task force: "the capacity to offer news to handhelds, feeds from web cams, searchable calendars and databases, more slide shows, live chats, faster updates and, especially, the capacity for users to individualize their DPO [Denver Post Online] experience." Moore is also charging an early-shift reporter with the task of posting news that took place overnight so that surfers will feel comfortable going straight to the paper's website instead of using a search engine like Google or Yahoo. To this end, Moore brought a new programmer aboard. Doing so in these tight budgetary circumstances wasn't easy; Cardwell says Moore "converted a jour!
nalist position to a programmer position" in order to pull it off. His choice was potentially controversial, but Cardwell sees it as "bold -- the kind of thing you need to do today. We can actually do more journalism and better reporting if we have a couple of programmers around here to help us with the other work."

Scribes will need all the time they can get, since Moore envisions a significant shift in the way news will be presented in the Post's print edition. Because Internet-savvy folks and those addicted to cable news already know the basic outline of many items before the Post hits their driveways, "the web will be our breaking-news platform," Moore says, "and the newspaper will be our platform for exclusive reporting and stories that really focus on telling people what happens next."

----------------------------------------------------------------

This article above is copyrighted material, the use of which may not have specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

// posted by newshare @ 6:55 PM

ORIGINAL URL:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1156888230924&call_pageid=971358637177

Star to launch electronic afternoon edition
Aug. 30, 2006. 01:00 AM

Trying to reach readers who covet up-to-the-minute news, the Toronto Star is launching an eight-page afternoon edition that can be downloaded from a computer and printed.

Called Star P.M., the free newspaper in pdf format will be available on weekdays starting next Tuesday. The effort is the first of its kind in North America. Other daily newspapers that have recently launched downloadable editions include The Guardian and the Financial Times.

"We must be prepared to explore new ideas and take risks when we see strategic opportunities to do so," Star publisher Michael Goldbloom said in a statement. "We are really proud of the work of our newsroom and we want to get their work to people in the time and the way they want it." Goldbloom said that later this year, the Star would start an html version of Star P.M. that would allow consumers to select more customized news and advertising content.

Star P.M. will include breaking news, a crossword and a Sudoku puzzle, and other information, such as traffic conditions, weather and TV highlights.

Several advertisers, including Air Canada, the CBC, General Motors, Mirvish Productions and ReMax, have committed to buy advertising for the new edition for at least 17 weeks, Goldbloom said. "The industry is really looking at this as an experiment," said Hugh Dow,
a Toronto ad industry executive.

You can sign up for your daily email alert at
http://www.thestar.com/starpm

// posted by newshare @ 6:08 PM

http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,1861318,00.html

Why the NYT web block doesn't work

The New York Times' attempt to block UK web users from reading a story on
its website is difficult to enforce

SA Mathieson
Wednesday August 30, 2006
MediaGuardian.co.uk

The New York Times' efforts to block internet users in Britain from reading a page on its website are unlikely to succeed - and for some UK users do not work at all, allowing them normal access to the article.On Monday, the newspaper attempted to block UK access to the story, headlined "Details emerge in British terror case", on the investigation into alleged attempts to bomb transatlantic flights.

It gave English legal restrictions on reporting of investigations prior to a trial as its reason for the blocking.

SEE: http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,1860583,00.html
(reprinted below)

Most UK users attempting to access the article see an error page explaining this, but staff at some organisations with international computer networks will reach it without hindrance.

This is because some multinational organisations send web traffic from locations in several countries through one connection with the public internet. This means that for website operators, all that organisation's staff appear to be located in the country with the connection, regardless of their actual location.

Internet service provider AOL similarly uses a US connection for its UK customers. However, Phil Hale, a spokesman for AOL UK, says the company tells some website owners how to derive the country of AOL customers - although not their full address - such as for preventing American users from accessing European gaming websites, to comply with US legislation. AOL was not able to confirm whether the New York Times uses this system.

The technology used to block the article is normally employed by the New York Times to display UK advertising to British users. Richard Clayton, an internet expert at Cambridge University's Computer Laboratory, says the available methods are accurate enough for advertising, but cannot be depended upon. "Anything involving trace-routing on the internet is a best efforts, 99% reliable thing," he says. "It's not terribly good for a court of law."

A spokeswoman for the BBC's online operation said the internet protocol address of a user - the simplest way in which a website can derive his or her location - provides "a good gauge" of where users are located, and is accurate 90% of the time.

Internet service providers can usually locate individual users with accuracy, such as through the telephone number used for connecting or the address of a payment card, but they normally require a legally binding request to do so.

The New York Times' restriction can be also circumvented through online services designed to provide anonymous web surfing, such as the free US-based website the-cloak.com. Such services substitute the end user's internet protocol address for that of the provider, with the aim of enhancing user privacy.

The article has also been republished unofficially on several sites. as a web search will reveal, as well as in edited form by the Toronto Star in Canada, apparently without blocking technology.

UK readers blocked from NY Times terror article
http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,1860583,00.html

Julia Day
Tuesday August 29, 2006
MediaGuardian.co.uk

The New York Times has blocked British readers from accessing an article published in the US about the alleged London bomb plot for fear of breaching the UK's contempt of court laws.Published in the US yesterday under the headline "Details emerge in British terror case", the article claims to reveal new information about the alleged terror bomb plot that brought British airports to a standstill earlier this month.

Online access to the article from the UK has been blocked and the shipment of yesterday's paper to London was stopped. The story was also omitted from the International Herald Tribune, the NYT's European sister paper.

The article purports to contain new information about Scotland Yard's surveillance of the alleged plotters and the subsequent police operation which resulted in the arrest of 24 suspects.

The claims in the article are based on testimonies from "British officials and others briefed on the evidence, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity, citing British rules on confidentiality regarding criminal prosecutions" with six reporters contributing to the piece from New York, Washington and Pakistan.

Anyone from the UK attempting to read the article via the New York Times website is met with the message: "This Article Is Unavailable. On advice of legal counsel, this article is unavailable to readers of nytimes.com in Britain. This arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial. "

It is believed to be the first time that the paper has stopped British readers accessing one of its articles because of worries about UK law.

Earlier this month, the home secretary, John Reid, and the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, issued a joint warning to the media to avoid coverage of the current terror investigations which might prejudice future trials. The statement threatened possible contempt proceedings against publications that failed to show appropriate "restraint". Mr Reid took the unusual step of seeking the attorney general's legal advice before publicising details of the alleged plot.

Because of the "exceptional" nature of the allegations, it was agreed he could reveal a significant amount of information surrounding the arrests of the 24 suspects.

The New York Times has been contacted by MediaGuardian.co.uk but had not responded by the time of publication. Jill Abramson, a managing editor at the paper, said: "It's never a happy choice to deny any reader a story. But this was preferable to not having it on the web at all."

"I think we have to take every case on its own facts," said George Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel of the New York Times Company. "But we're dealing with a country [the UK] that, while it doesn't have a First Amendment, it does have a free press, and it's our position that we ought to respect that country's laws."

While shelving the print versions of the article in Britain was straightforward, the issue of the publication on the web was more complicated, said the newspaper in an article published online today.

Richard J. Meislin, the paper's associate managing editor for internet publishing, said it used the paper's online advertising technology to discern the internet address of users connecting to the site.

· To contact the MediaGuardian newsdesk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 7239 9857

----------------------------------------------------------------

This article above is copyrighted material, the use of which may not have specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

// posted by newshare @ 6:04 PM