So what about Wikileaks? Is it a service of transparency and honesty or something insidious that must be stopped? We in the US have a tradition of free speech. And further, this is not the first time such a thing has happened to us. There are many court cases on government leaks. From Veronica Plame to the Pentagon Papers to the numerous cases during the first two World Wars, release of government information has been problematic to the government and a subject of public debate. But the US is a strong country, and we learned lessons over the years. One lesson we learned is that much like a parent must take responsibility for their children, the government must take responsibility for the safety of its data. We have also learned that individuals have always been held accountable for the leaks. And that is as it should be. If the government loses its data, it is responsible. The person who commits the theft, is of course also responsible.

But so far, the US has not had a strong tradition of holding the publishing news organizations responsible for the dissemination of the data. The New York Times published the Pentagon Papers with the way being cleared by the US Supreme Court (New York Times v. US 403 US 713 (1971). And Wikileaks sought out the major news organizations such as the New York Times, the Guardian in the UK, etc. to assist with its publication of leaked material.

I bring up this thread as I think about privacy, about the government role in keeping itself and its population (including me) safe, and about the traditions of free speech. Should the government keep its data safe? Certainly. What happens when it loses its data? Who is held responsible? Is it OK to use a “prior restraint” to stop the publication (so far the USSC says “no”)? Does the leaked information ever enter a “public domain?” What is the balance between the journalistic concept of the public interest and national security? These issues have been debated for decades. Time to debate them again.

So when you go to a bar, you do not have to ask the cute girl or handsome man for their contact information – just snap a picture with your smartphone and it will give their phone number, street address, email address, etc. to you. Nevermind that they did not want to give you their number. Or nevermind they thought you were a jerk and would have given you a fake number. Nevermind consent of any sort, they can just take the picture of you from a range that you never even see them doing it. It is one thing in classic privacy theory to expose yourself in public and it is another that anyone with common technology can use database aggregation (which is what these lookups are called) in new and possibly scary ways. It is one thing for the police to be able to pull you over and verify the picture on your driver’s license. It is another for anyone on the street to be able to get this type of information. So I guess we just need to get over the idea of privacy.

The FCC was attempting to use its “ancillary” jurisdiction to regulated “net neutrality.” Ancillary jurisdiction has worked in the past – when cable television was a young, and at the time, inconsequential aid to a few people in rural areas who needed to receive over-the-air television. But in this case we have a mature, ubiquitous, and important media and the FCC tried to use its “ancillary” jurisdiction. The court said that the FCC exceeded its general regulatory authority when trying to apply plenary regulation to the Internet.

Congress gives authority to the FCC in the Communications Act of 1934. It is an interesting read of structural policy. For example, there is a chapter on “common carriers,” and one on “radio (and television),” and one on “cable television.” But nowhere do you find the chapter on “the Internet.” Not that the Internet needs its own chapter (but it should have one…), plenty of services are regulated under the big topics including cellphones (common carrier) and satellites (also common carrier). But even when looking for the provisions that apply to the Internet, there are few of them. So the FCC did see itself as having significant authority over the Internet, but the court saw the FCC has having what Congress has given it and not too much more.

And the importance of this case? First the FCC needs to think of another way to regulate things like net neutrality (and it is busy brainstorming right now) and second, perhaps this will encourage Congress to take up the topic of Internet regulation and jurisdiction (a new chapter in the communications act, anyone?). With clarity from Congress, the FCC could have its way with Internet regulation.

This is a link to my original 2001 presentation.  Towards the end you will see a couple of slides where I calculate what I think the then-foreseeable need for 100MB might be: http://medialawprofessor.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/broadband-presentation-morris1.ppt

So is putting Jay back on the Tonight Show the right thing for NBC?  This is just a long-time television observer’s opinion, but Jay has done damage to himself.  Can he win the late-night ratings? Maybe.  But it won’t be like it used to be with Fortress Jay dominating late-night.  People have had a chance to tune around and see what else is available and the young, hip comedians are creative and interesting.  Jimmy Fallon is showing his range (he can even sing a bit) as an entertainer. Craig Ferguson (a bit older, but still new to the scene) is showing that he is a terrific interviewer. Chelsea Handler is a stealth but powerful force.  Jay now needs to look over his shoulder.  As of today, Jay is the definition of old-school.

Good luck to Conan on his future career moves.  Good luck to Jay.  Now that the battle is over, it is time for this viewer to surf the channels and find something interesting to watch in late night.

Chuck and I watched Court TV for ten years to do our study.  It is humanities-oriented (ie not quantitative) and a fun read. Court TV provided live gavel-to-gavel coverage of fascinating cases from divorces to small claims court.  It provided post-trial interpretation by experts and in the early years, it even had continuing-education programs for lawyers.  Court TV was not able to sustain sufficient ratings and transformed into the popular-cime-drama/docu genre that it is now.

Here is the citation: Chuck Kleinhans and Rick Morris, “Court TV: The Evolution of a Reality Format,” Startling! Heartbreaking!Real! Reality TV and the Remaking of Television Culture, Laurie Ouellette and Sue Murray, eds., (New York: NYU Press, 2004), 157-175  Note that this is the FIRST  edition of the book.  Laurie and Sue went on to do a second edition and Court TV had transformed into TruTV by then so our chapter did not make it through to the second edition.

By the way, in case you are not following the issue: Proposition 8 is the California provision that voted to overturn same-sex marriage in California.  Certainly a lot of people on both sides of the issue are interested in it, and I presume would be interested in watching the trial proceedings.

The US Supreme court case is  Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. _____ (2010).

“Cameras in the courtroom” has always had the attention of the public, the news media, and the academic community for years.  Wouldn’t cameras in the courtroom create a more informed and engaged public? Wouldn’t there be greater learning about the judicial process? Wouldn’t it be nice if the press and the public had more opportunities to see when the judicial system does not function optimally? Although virtually all court proceedings are open to the public who want to attend in person, it is not easy to either attend nor discuss what happened and cameras in courts make both easier.

Many states permit cameras in the courtroom and the USSC does have audiotapes of its arguments available (the famous Oyez project at Northwesten University helps make those tapes available).  But federal courts have been resistant to cameras in the courtroom for trials.

Why? Perhaps the O.J. Simpson trial.  What could have been a breakthrough for cameras in the courtroom created a lot of concern within the legal community and among the public.  Every side and position can find something to be concerned about cameras in the courtroom after that trial.

So why do I think the USSC is correct in its ruling in Hollingsworth?  The subject matter has no sway in my opinion,  I am a reasonably liberal professor-type. But my concern, and the Court’s concern, goes mainly to the process.  The 9th Circuit and its trial court attempted to change its rule basically a the last minute (in December for a January trial, although discussions of televising this trial started a couple of months earlier) and without public comment.  If there is anything that even today in 2010 that is frought with issues and deserves due consideration, it is cameras in the courtroom. Instead, in this case the 9th Circuit and its trial court tried to rush through rules without what the Court found to be enough consideration.

In particular, I can see questions of when witnesses should not be televised (rape victims/witnesses?), or when entire trials should not be televised. Also, rules need to be established in the 9th circuit on lots of operational issues like what cameras can look at (juror’s faces?) and there is a whole host of other questions.  The USSC notes that in this case same-sex couples will be testifying, and that some parties have already received what appears to be threats of violence against them.   Both types of parties, among others might not want their testimony televised.  There needs to be a full procedure for considering those issues before the court moves into the arena of cameras in the trial courtroom.  And moments before a major case does not seem to be the right time.

No doubt that the 9th Circuit has been considering cameras in the courtroom for a long time.  But the record before the USSC gave them pause that this is not the moment.  Note that the majority opinion is written “per curium” but that the dissent is signed by four justices (Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor).  That presumably makes this a 5-4 decision.  The Supreme Court could not be more split.

The federal courts need to get moving with permitting cameras in the trial courts.  They need to adopt their rules after public comment and the judges need to get experience with interpretation of the rules and how to best respond to requests of the parties for protection.  And the court staff needs to have practice on how to handle the real-time exigencies of broadcasting.  It is hard enough to know what to do when broadcasting a live awards show, and unlike cameras in the courtroom, no one will receive the death sentence after the show is over.  The stakes are high, but our judicial system and our democracy is the best in the world.  And cameras in the courtroom have the promise to make both stronger.

So what went wrong?  This observer believes that both Jay and Conan are responsible for their own ratings failures.  Let’s start with Jay.  Jay tried to take his version of the “Tonight Show” and move it to primetime with a little more flash.  Who is he kidding?  Any student of television (except perhaps the brass of NBC?) knows that the homes using television are much higher in primetime and that the audience is different.  Carrying over the same show is a recipe for failure.  While some of the new bits were charming (the Dan Band) more often than not the new segments were pace killers.  The “earn your plug” segment stopped the show in its tracks and were not amusing, they were almost like watching an old Gong Show segment, except the poor celebrity clearly was not having as much fun as a Gong Show contestant.  And the electric car segment was cute a time or two, but it was also so clearly a show-stopper that when Arnold Schwartzenegger was on, they just had him blow up the car al la the Terminator.  This observer thinks that the old Johnny Carson show would have appealed to a broader audience and had higher ratings in primetime.  Johnny Carson had something for everyone; he was almost a variety show  – depending on the night, he did some monologue, brought out a guest, brought out an animal act, brought out a comedian (notice Jay rarely had on a “competing comedian telling jokes), and ended with a big musical act.  Even if that is not the tastes of the audience in 2010, it is an example of a much broader-appealing show that if reconceived in 2010 might be broad enough to attract more of the pre-news audience.

And what about Conan’s Tonight Show? Same exact issue, he tried to move from a place where he had an audience that loved him to a new place without changing the show.  Dick Ebersol, a legend himself in late night (Saturday Night Live) stated in an inerview in the New York Times that he tried to get Conan to broaden his show’s appeal ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/business/media/15conan.html).  although Mr. Ebersol defends Jay, my opinion is that Jay committed the same sin.  The ratings of both shows tell the same story.  Audience appeal is measurable by the ratings every day in timeparts of 15 minutes or less (so a show can tell if a single segment isn’t working!) and neither show could find the right mix to bring in the audience.

And what were the NBC brass thinking? The last time there was a host change on the Tonight Show (Carson to Leno) it took over a year before it found its audience with the famous Hugh Grant interview that finally pulled it ahead of Letterman in the ratings.  From this perch in middle-America, it appears as if they did not have plans for how to make the long-haul to success.  NBC took years to build up its primetime success in the 1980′s and 1990′s and years to lose it; if there is any organization that should, in theory, understand long-term audience development, it should be ?NBC.

What next for Conan? Both Jay Leno and David Letterman are absolute masters of the late-night format.  They are both are superb comedians.  If Conan tries to compete directly with a re-engineered Jay-vs-David late-night landscape, it will be a difficult road for him.  Just my opinion.