What is 'catch and kill' journalism?

  The First Amendment protects the freedom of press, meaning the government cannot interfere with journalists’ work or punish them for what they report.

  However, the First Amendment doesn’t shield journalists and news outlets in all cases. Libel, defamation, and plagiarism, among other things, are not protected.

  Even with free press protections, journalists could be prevented from reporting a story, though not by government officials legally stopping them or threatening them with jail. Another way some stories do not get reported is “catch and kill journalism.”

Objectivity in journalism: A fair but flawed idea?

  A common critique of news today is that journalists have an “agenda.” People want journalism to present facts, not opinions or biases. It’s a noble wish.

  The First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but it does not require news outlets to be “objective.”

  You’re not alone if you have ever read, watched, or listened to a news story and thought, “That’s not objective journalism.” Everyone has encountered journalism that isn’t truly objective. That’s because humans who report, edit, and produce news can’t truly be objective, no matter how hard they try.

Hannity Hassle: Let’s apply ‘The Five W’s and How’

  If the burning national question of the moment is whether Fox News Channel star Sean Hannity is a “journalist” or not, let’s use the long-held set of journalistic questions to investigate: The proverbial who, what, when, where, why and how?

  First, the “who”: Sean Patrick Hannity is a cable TV conservative talk show host and best-selling author. Most recently he is said to serve as an unpaid advisor to President Trump — some say that relationship is so close that he “has a desk” at the White House. Hannity was born in New York City and has spent much of his broadcast career there.

Eric Alterman: The Media and climate science: ADHD or deliberate deception?

  Dr. François Gonon, a neurobiologist at the University of Bordeaux, together with his colleagues recently published an article in The Public Library of Science, taking a foray into media criticism. Using attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, for his experiment metaphor, Gonon and company searched the databases PubMed and Factiva for articles on ADHD. They found that 47 papers on ADHD received coverage in 347 articles in English-language newspapers during the 1990s. From these, The Economist reports, Gonon’s team picked 10 papers that had enjoyed fully 223 of the news articles.

  What happened next, if you’ll forgive me, turned out to be a case of journalistic ADHD. While 67 later studies examined those selected 10, the second batch received attention in only 57 newspaper articles total, with most of them focusing on only two such studies. Gonon’s conclusion: An “almost complete amnesia in the newspaper coverage of biomedical findings.”