Let me introduce you to Elaine Hopkins. Not all that long ago, she retired from a long career as a reporter for the Peoria Journal Star. If you were cop, attorney, politician or any king of public figure for the past 20 years, you’ve ran into Elaine doing her job. I don’t want to “out” her age, but she was a staff reporter for the
One of the things she’s been writing about are the inequities she and others see in the child welfare system in Illinois and Peoria. As part of her reporting on this issue, she attended a juvenile court hearing for a woman who says her two young grandchildren were abused in foster care. She wanted to be appointed a special advocate, which would allow for the children to be placed in her care.
In Illinois, juvenile court cases are closed to the public, but reporters are allowed to attend. This is what happened:
A Peoria County juvenile court judge,
Albert Purham , Jr., would not allow a blogger, Elaine Hopkins for Peoriastory.com, to observe and cover a July 25 juvenile court hearing. He ruled that a blogger is not a journalist under Illinois law.Juvenile court is closed to the public in Illinois, but by law is open to journalists.
Operating a “so-called blog” doesn’t make the person a journalist, Purham said.
Before the ruling he consulted the lawyers in the courtroom. A lawyer for the parent in this child welfare case had no objection, and her client, Lorraine Singleton who lost her children in 2003 and is trying to get them back, also had no objection.
But assistant state’s attorney Susan Lucas objected, as did an unidentified female lawyer apparently representing the
Illinois Department of Children and Family Services .An explanation that Peoriastory.com has operated since February 2007, has business cards, and is run by Hopkins, a former newspaper reporter known to court personnel, did not sway the judge.
My two cents: Lest the judge alone come under criticism for his decision, it must be noted that the lone representative for Peoria County SA Kevin Lyons’ also opposed letting Elaine Hopkins do her job.
One wonders what Judge Purham would have done were he a judge decades ago when the first radio journalists began doing their jobs. Most early broadcast reporters were, like Elaine, veterans of the print world who were trying their hand at a new exciting way to distribute the news. Would Purham have turned away young Walter Cronkite, a United Press reporter before he became Uncle Walter?
What makes a person a journalist isn’t the particular media he or she uses to disseminate the news. It’s the fact that they are disseminating the news to a mass audience.
Hat tip: C.J.
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
I am a dishwasher at a local restaurant. If I start a local blog can I start a blog and also be called a journalist? I never got much schooling but I can type pertty good.
My first thought would be, there is no basic rules of ethics and standards for bloggers, therefore no assurances of objective reporting. I have read some very bias blogs in this area and likely other communities are no different.
I agree, Bill. Judge Purham made a bad call here. Elaine Hopkins just isn’t some schmoe, but someone who does a credible reporting job. This is an issue our courts will have to deal with more and more. It is only a matter of time before citizen journalists are given the same credibility as those of the more traditional mediums.
Oh yeah … “journalists” … that higher form of life….right…
The government should NOT be in the business of deciding who is and who is not a journalist. Period. End of story.
Adding…
My advice to Ms. Hopkins was to join the National Writers Union. The dues are inexpensive and they’ll issue a press pass to bloggers who are doing legit reporting. While the judge shouldn’t have barred her in the first place, an NWU press pass would’ve gone a long way towards changing his mind because it’s an independent authority that has set standards for who can get the press pass. I’m a member.
I’d advise the same for you, Bill, unless your libertarian leanings rule out union membership.
http://www.nwu.org/
Bill, here is a question for you. If you are a blogger, can you refuse to name a source, like “real” journalists do? And since bloggers are not considered journalists by this judge’s definition, where does not naming sources leave bloggers? Do we end up being accused of making things up since we *supposedly* do not have some sort of journalistic integrity “code”?
In other words, if you, C.J., etc. break a story on a tip and all hell breaks loose, can you protect your source?
Eric: ” … no basic rules of ethics and standards for bloggers, therefore no assurances of objective reporting.” Two words Jayson Blair.
I’ve found that “bias” is often used to defined as any opinion that disagrees with one’s one. If you refer to deliberate and subtle efforts to tilt a story to support a specific position, I find that happens in the finest newspapers. Bloggers are quite open about their positions.
chefkevin: My rights are defined by the courts, as is the case with anyone. Whether I am protected by state or federal shield laws would be determined as a matter of law by a judge, should it ever come to that.
I’m finding that the courts are more accepting of the concept that individual citizens are committing journalism on the Internet. However, I am finding the courts and the public increasingly hostile to press freedoms. A federal judge (at the behest of federal prosecutors) locked up a New York Times reporter until she agrees to say what they wanted her to say. I cannot imagine that Woodward and Bernstein could have covered Watergate the way they did under this same threat.
We just recently beat back an attempt to make bloggers like myself submit financial disclosure statements should we happen to link to politicians Websites. In fact, any blogger who wrote about politics could be forced to prove he or she isn’t being financed by a politician.
Yeah, there’s still a lot to be nervous about.
It is more than a little ironic, though, that not long ago she was attempting to undermine some bloggers’ credibility and now she’s been lumped in with everyone. Still, it wasn’t right then and it’s not right now.
Is rabble going to be roused? Is hell going to be raised? Can I come?
Kev: “If you are a blogger, can you refuse to name a source, like “real†journalists do?”
Absolutely, and then you can spend time in jail for contempt of court, just like real journalists do. (And then if you want you can get a really good job in journalism because “went to jail to protect a source” is a major resume-builder.)
31 states (including Illinois) have shield laws, but they are uneven in what they protect and unevenly enforced. Journalists should never assume a shield law will protect them from jail time.
Greg: “If I start a local blog can I start a blog and also be called a journalist? ”
Yes. And if you run off a broadsheet at Kinko’s you can call yourself a newspaperman. It’s part of the glory of the First Amendment.
Eric: “My first thought would be, there is no basic rules of ethics and standards for bloggers”
There are no such assurances in “mainstream” media either. Most major outlets adhere to internal ethics rules and standards, but they do so because they want to, not because there is any force of law or any industry-wide standard. They don’t revoke your journalism license because you tell big fat lies. It’s not a limited-entry profession.
I’d love to see the judge’s precise ruling. There’s nothing in Illinois that requires you to be a journalist to cover Juvenile Court proceedings. Here’s what the law actually says:
“The general public except for the news media and the crime victim, as defined in Section 3 of the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act, shall be excluded from any hearing” (705 ILCS 405/1-5(6))
I don’t think you’ll find anyone on the street today who would disagree that the Internet is a medium for news. Whether a blogger fits the definition of “journalist” is another question, but a completely irrelevant one under the law.
I kind of agree with the judge. I think since a juvenile is involved he should err on the side of caution. If it were ever my child I would want as few people as possible in the courtroom. You just never know where a pervert could end up… no reflection whatsoever on Elaine, whom I sure is a fine journalist and person. Perhaps Bloggers should set up some kind of system to get recognized “credentials” where they agree to adhere to some kind of code of ethics or standards. I’m sure no expert I just tend to agree with the judge.
[...] and the members of the court knew this from her coverage of prior court cases. Billy Dennis — of Peoria Pundits — reports that the blogger, Elaine Hopkins, was a Peoria Journal-Star reporter for much of [...]
One thing that is being forgotten here is the protection of the juvenile. This was juvenile court and they don’t publish the names of juveniles to protect their identity, so jounalist are restricted in that effort and they abide by it. Would the average blogger do the same? We must protect the children.
I’m not familiar with Illinois law defining who is and who isn’t a journalist. Which is stupid on my part since I worked as a reporter/writer for a year. Can someone provide a specific link?
I can tell you that under our federal constitution and all USSC interpretation since, that there is no separate set of rights created for journalists, they are still considered considered citizens and not members of a protected 4th Estate. That said, that guarantees that the rights to publish and speak are protected for everybody. The logical following from that would be that the Illinois law banning anyone from a courtroom is therefore unconstitutional. hmmmm.
It would appear that our state constitution also does not support such a distinction:
“SECTION 4. FREEDOM OF SPEECH
All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being
responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”
Although the individual statute may be a little fuzzy:
735 ILCS 5/Art. VIII Pt. 9 Reporters’ Privilege
[...] over at the Peoria Pundit thinks that just because you are reporting the news to the masses, you are a journalist. I have to [...]
Juvenile court is closed for a variety of reasons. only parties to the proceedings are allowed and the press.
But assistant state’s attorney Susan Lucas objected, as did an unidentified female lawyer apparently representing the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.
That lawyer would have been the Guardian Ad Litem, who does not represent DCFS, but the child. Perhaps if someone is going to tout press creditials, they need to do a little research on the players. Anyone can set up a blog, there are no criteria. It is often not in the best interest of children in abuse and neglect cases to have thier names and stories plastered in the media. The goal of juvenile court is to do what is in the best interest of the child, one would hope that would garner some respect, even from the liberals.
Maybe if Ms. Hopkins got access to the hearing as a member of the news media, she would have had a chance to properly identify the participants. How is she supposed to research the players when she can’t even get in the door?
Your concern about disclosure of children’s names is covered in the statute as well.
705 ILCS 5/1-5(6) (Juvenile Ct Act) states:
6) The general public except for the news media and the crime victim. . . shall be excluded from any hearing . . . . However, the court may, for the minor’s safety and protection and for good cause shown, prohibit any person or agency present in court from further disclosing the minor’s identity.
You are right about the fact that anyone can start a blog. That brings up the troubling prospect of the court (the government) deciding who is a journalist and who is not. I don’t like that at all. Maybe juvenile court should be open to the court like any other proceeding.
Michele,
lets look at another real case played out in the media. The young man from Canton who was horribly abused by his “parents”. This child’s name was not disclosed, but his parent’s were. The details of his abuse, having a dog trained to attack his genitals, etc. was on the news for nearly a week. I sat there mortified because I bet I was one of the few people who realizes the impact of this on the child. This child had to go to school the next day and the next day with the entire community aware of what was done to him. Are you really going to fight to report what goes on in juvenile court at the expense of abused and neglected children. While I wish there were an avenue to report to folks about the atrocities in the community, because people would become so mortified there would be true change, but at the expense of re-traumatizing these children. I think there is a higher moral obligation which frames this legislation.
Paul,
Abuse and neglect is never the child’s fault. The people of any small to mid-sized town will know what has happened through the gossip network. Should the media protect the child by not identifying the scumbag parents? I’ll bet the parents would have liked that.
Government, including the courts, should be a transparent process.
So if a person starts a blog on Monday, they should be able to sit in on a hearing, having never done reporting ever? The law doesn’t discriminate. I truly don’t believe you want anyone who claims to have an interest in reporting being able to sit in a closed hearing.
whether or not the grape vine works or not, does not justify retraumatizing the child.. This is not protecting the child in any way. We have systems in place for that function. Should a rape victim have the details of her trauma broadcast, maybe a video tape?, perhaps release her name too, what about domestic violence victims? Perhaps for their “protection” all of that should be played out in the media as well. I hope that you are never a victim of these things, and would invite you to volunteer in a place that does provide help. It will change your viewpoint. I am sorry, there are circumstances where out of respect for victims we do not play this information in media.
Paul,
I admire your advocacy for victims. We’re getting off topic though. I am talking about ACCESS to the courts, not for publication of all of the sensitive details. Journalists/bloggers have access to rape trials, but respectable publications do not publish the rape victim’s name. Why can’t journalist bloggers have access to juvenile courts? The judge can order the the journalist not to publish the names of the children.
I hope that neither of us is the victim of any crime and I have volunteered for a place that provides help. Again, I am not advocating the publication of victims’ identities. I am advocating open courtrooms and open government.
Assuming that true journalist bloggers like Elaine Hopkins are granted access to juvenile court, it does not solve the problem raised by anonymous 12:56 and others — anyone can start a blog, but not all bloggers are journalists/news media.
Just how does anyone know the difference between a journalist blogger and the typical? Other than good and sensative judgement, there are no limits, unless a specific court order, and I doubt that would come into play in all cases. But do agree that the court should be open to the established press, just to make sure against abuse, etc. But then there are some publications that are selective in the truth they print.
Pick up a newspaper some day. The vast majority do NOT publish the names of juveniles (those in the courts as victims or perpetrators) nor of women who are victims or property crimes. This is done NOT because of any law or on any judges order. This is behavior considered ethical by some 99 percent of newspapers in America.
And I take issue with those who state that the “playing it safe” ruling in this situation is to deny access if there is a question the person seeing to attend MAY not be a journalist. Wrong. The default position in the United States is that the courts are open, as should all functions of the government. Ruling that a session of the court is closed is an extraordinary position to take, and should be taken only when it is clear because of specific and valid reasons of overwhelming public interest. That was NOT the case here.
And Paul: I’ve covered some sensational child abuse cases, including one in which DCFS was accused of lack of sufficient oversight. Keeping reporters out of these sessions due to the historically unfounded fear kids’ names would be revealed would only hurt children because it would have prevented light being shed on the situation. The primarary beneficiaries of a muzzle on the media are judges and state agencies, not the children.
[...] I do believe I’ve said that very same thing several times on my blog, including here. Pam must have missed [...]
I have a story for you about dcfs. I have had recent involvement and they have my five children. Please contact me asap.
This specific judge is doing my case. you would not believe the unjust things and the rights acorrding to the amendments that they have violated. My fourth and fourteenth and unlawfully took my children. please contact me. I would be happy to talk to Elaine Hopkins or Billy Dennis. I want to picket and have a reporter who will cover the story if i can get people together to picket the peoria dcfs offic!!!