RSS FeedReal Media Don’t Die, We Multiply
If you’ve been alive and on the Internet in the past year you would have read the obituaries – print newspapers are dead. Or dying, so they claim.
Some are even claiming the recession with determine the outcome of print, who are expected to see a major decline in 2009. Even law reviews are seeing the transition to exclusive virtual publication. And print legal researchers may be an endangered species.
One of the best April Fool’s gags this year was The Guardian‘s story on how they had moved to Twitter – exclusively.
But others claim that traditional media is not dying, it’s simply changing. Parker Mason, a PR friend of mine in TO said,
Did the invention of the printing press kill off the spoken word? No. It just meant that hand-lettered books were no longer necessary, and it gave more people access to literature and information.
Did the invention of radio kill off the written word? Again, no.
Did television indeed kill the radio star? No, but it might have forced some radio stars to adapt to become more television-friendly. And it also created a whole knew breed of radio stars.
Did the internet kill television? Again, no. If you’re like me, you might not use an actual television set but you probably still enjoy watching television shows on your computer or portable device.
Print media is likely to be around regardless. What papers will do is probably enhance their online presence, and many Canadian papers are already seeing an explosion of comments and interactivity on their sites. Dany Horovitz of Law is Cool also writes for the National Post’s Executive Blog, an exclusively digital publication.
Legal media is probably not much different, despite our affinity in this industry for paper. With over 4,500 hits a day on this site (and growing), we’re competing directly with legal print media for numbers. But not necessarily readership, because ours is global; or even for content, given our unique format and different focus on students specifically.
Smart newspapers will make this transition seamlessly. Smarter ones will partner with existing online media outlets.
The University of Western Ontario’s law school paper, Nexus, did post here for some time through their former editor-in-chief, Alex Dimson. The paper has gone through some changes and is now named Amicus Curiae, and we’re pleased to announce that the new paper will posting selective articles on Law is Cool as well.
Check out Ahmed Farahat’s excellent interview with Justice Binnie. Kamila Pizon of Amicus Curiae will also be posting shortly on the transition from LL.B. to J.D.
The synergies between print and virtual media are natural but often overlooked. We benefit from well-researched, carefully edited pieces, and they have an opportunity to speak to a larger audience.
Trained journalists also benefit from going online, and bring their writing skills with them.
For example, we’ve just taken on Digal Haio, a 2L at Osgoode. I first met Digal years ago during outreach activities in politics, where she was working for the Somali Press, an important voice for a vibrant and dynamic community with unique challenges of marginalization, discrimination, and racism. We’ve always had a strong mandate on this site for social justice and empowerment, and her contributions will definitely be valued.
At one time I also worked as a reporter in a print-based newspaper as a side job.
But the conversation goes the other way as well. I recently did an interview with Charles Adler on his nationally-syndicated radio show. The topic of conversation? My blog post on Animal Spirits, something everyone is worrying about in the midst of the G20 and economic troubles. I did another interview yesterday with Luigi Bennetton for Lawyers Weekly on web collaboration and wikis.
The Internet is an excellent place journalists to find topics of interest among the public, and find resources and experts for their pieces.
Law firms and lawyers have never underestimated the need for media presence, for client development or even basic advocacy. At some point they’ll have to start including online media, because that’s where most of the content will be. The University of Western Ontario law school recently started posting videos and downloadable audio files for our distinguished speakers, a move that will likely increase their profile generally in the legal community.
The growth of online media does not necessarily mean the demise of print. It just harkens change, one of the inevitabilities in life. Those embracing this change will not only flourish, but will find their media experiences enriched as a result.
Please note most of us are entering our exam period, and regular postings will be on hold.
U.S. Justice System Warped, Greenspan Says
by Kamila Pizon, UWO law
The American criminal justice system is unfairly biased against an accused, Canada’s most renowed criminal defence attorney told Western Law students during a recent lecture on the role of defence counsel in Canadian society.
 |
|---|
| Eddie Greenspan speaking at Western Law |
Eddie Greenspan, who recently defended Conrad Black against mail fraud and obstruction of justices charges in Chicago, described the process of defending an accused in the U.S. as an uphill battle.
“The entire American justice system is warped, tilted against the accused person,” he said, pointing out that US prosecutors are not subject to the same disclosure requirement as their Canadian counterparts. While the Canadian Crown is required to provide an accused with the evidence against them as soon as possible, there is no similar requirement in the U.S., resulting in Greenspan receiving millions of pages of evidence and statements just 60 days before the start of a trial.
Greenspan also listed the strict federal evidence rules and “crushing” sentencing rules as factors contributing to the imbalance. As a result, he said that some people charged with murder in Canada get out faster than Conrad Black will.
Greenspan, who has represented many of Canada’s most famous criminal defendants over the course of his 40 years in law, spoke before a packed lecture hall. His numerous anecdotes and candour drew a warm reaction from the audience.
“There was a movie called [And Justice for All, in which], Al Pacino was cheered by audience in both in theatre and in the movie as he announced that his client, a judge, was guilty. Surely, that’s not a defence lawyer you want,” quipped Greenspan.
Although he injected a healthy dose of humour into the proceedings, Greenspan’s message was a serious one. According to Greenspan, defence lawyers have a vital social role in ensuring a balanced justice system. The defence lawyer “doesn’t merely keep an open mind about the accused, [but] is the accused’s advocate,” he said. “The defence lawyer chooses the occupation voluntarily but doesn’t choose the role. Society defines the role.”
“If you are a criminal lawyer, you stand between the abuse of government power and the individual. If you are a criminal lawyer, you stand between the abuse of judicial power and the individual,” he said, further highlighting the unique role of defence lawyers in the justice system.
Greenspan said that defence lawyers embody the idea of presumption of innocence. They serve fundamental justice not by paying lip service to ideas of abstract justice of objective truth, but by taking the side of their clients.
Accordingly, Greenspan discussed the right to legal representation as a fundamental legal concept, not a matter of choice for defence counsel. “The concept of right to counsel is one of most significant manifestations of respect for the dignity of the person, an absolute right that extends to any person charged with crime,” he said.
“It’s disturbing that law students today want to pick and choose their clients,” Greenspan warned his audience. He likened defence lawyers to doctors in the nature of the service they provide. “I have not time for any legal practitioner who places any limits, other than his or her skills, on the type of cases he or she defends. To me it’s like a medical doctor who refuses, as a matter of principle, to treat someone suffering from syphilis or AIDS.”
Greenspan pointed out that “guilt” is a legal rather than a moral term and each accused has a right to fair trial, no matter hopeless his or her case may be. The defence counsel’s belief in the client may make a world of a difference.
Greenspan’s illustrious career furnished several examples of wrongfully convicted clients. Referring to Donald Marshall, who was wrongfully convicted of murder in the early 1970s, Greenspan said that “if I made a moral judgment [before the trial], I would not have taken it on. No one thought for one second that he was not guilty. We now know he served 11 years for a crime he did not commit.”
Greenspan’s message for legal students is perhaps best captured by a maxim he offered near the end of the lecture. “Let justice be done,” he said. “That is, let justice be done for my client.”
Kamila Pizon is a first-year student at Western Law.
(Reproduced with the permission of the author)
