In an event that spans months to prepare for, the Dr. Lewis B. O’Donnell Media Summit was held virtually on Wednesday, Oct. 28.

While the summit is typically hosted in Waterman Theater, COVID-19 forced it to go fully virtual with seven breakout sessions leading up to the panel discussion moderated by SUNY Oswego assistant professor Michael Riecke. The breakout sessions and Zoom panel can be found online on the Media Summit’s website, free to watch at any time.

This year’s theme was “On the Front Lines with the First Amendment,” and the Media Summit executive board was able to find a wide variety of professionals to touch on such an open topic. Panelists came from as close as Buffalo to as far as North Texas, as the virtual nature of the event allowed for easier access to SUNY Oswego for some professionals with busy work schedules.

Panelists included Steve Brown, an investigative journalist for WGRZ in Buffalo; SUNY Oswego alumna Michelle Garcia, who is an editor overseeing NBC News’ NBCBLK vertical; Bret Jaspers, a political reporter for KERA, which is an NPR affiliate in Dallas; Ava Lubell, a legal fellow at Cornell Law School’s First Amendment Clinic, who provides pro bono advice to journalists regarding the First Amendment; and Pulitzer Prize winner Connie Schultz, who has authored several books and is a columnist for Creators Syndicate.

Before questions or introductions, the summit was started with a short video highlighting the old pre-COVID-19 Media Summit, as a nod to what the summit once was before it was forced fully-virtual. The summit’s co-event directors, Ben Grieco and Mikayla Green, led off with a speech discussing the fact that this was not the original plan, but the major events from 2020 were just too significant to ignore.

And, of course, the first virtual summit was not without minor technical glitches, as Riecke lagged out in his opening statements. Other than that and one small Zoom error in which the session ended, everything went incredibly smooth. 

Riecke began the discussion looking at the role of journalists at large. In a time where there is so much misinformation, he pondered whether or not these story tellers considered themselves to be “soldiers of truth.” While none of the journalists on the panel would give themselves such an “important title,” as Schultz said, she did mention that it is important for journalists to be vocal in different aspects.

“Before [President Donald Trump] was even elected, he was calling us the enemy of the people,” Schultz said. “Before we had Trump, I thought that journalists were not being activists for the profession enough. I understand that when you use the term activist, a lot of journalists will immediately recoil, you know, ‘we don’t get political,’ but that’s not what I meant by that. I mean that we have got to make clear to the public why journalism matters and why the First Amendment matters.”

While the First Amendment is clearly defined and studied in media law classes, Lubell likes to segment it into three pieces. Two of which are beneficial to journalists, while one is a bit more dangerous.

“One is as this beautiful shield and that’s where it most often comes in my work with journalists … [is] a beautiful defense [against the threat of lawsuits,]” Lubell said. “You also get to use it as a wonderful sword … It is a means by which you can investigate, find information and hold people accountable. But, I think there is a darker side to the First Amendment that’s being talked about among journalists … What’s the point of the First Amendment if it [lacks] regulation of platforms and disinformation?”

Misinformation is not a new phenomenon but has certainly gained traction as social media has given anybody and everybody access to an audience. It gave rise to what Garcia described as “information organizations [that try] to disseminate false information.” One person leading the way is Trump, who has unequivocally tweeted or mentioned actual “fake news” or rather false facts. This begs an important question: is everything that an elected official says newsworthy — even if it is false?

“Studies have shown that repeating bad information creates a path, a neural pathway that says it is true or that gets cemented in our brains as true rather than the fact check,” Jaspers said. “So, I’ve really tried to push back on playing the bad information, and I guess some others might disagree and say that’s not telling the world what the president is saying. But, he is actively misinforming people, and we know that he does that so it’s … a real problem.”

Schultz had a dissenting opinion, where she believes that it may be a journalist’s duty to inform the public what the president is saying on a regular basis. Perhaps, the only reason this false information may be considered newsworthy is because of the source. According to Brown, he would never use soundbites from an ordinary source when they are false. Jaspers found one concept that could be a safe compromise to his hesitations to use false sound and Schultz’s desire to hear from the president.

“I would be much more comfortable [using my own words rather than the sound] because then you are giving the right information in your paraphrase,” Jaspers said. “You can characterize it appropriately.”

After the first 45 minutes of the panel, Riecke opened it up to audience questions. One member wanted to know how local journalists could distance themselves from the negative connotation or stigma “the media” has picked up.

“[Local reporters are] in their backyard, in their community,” Brown said. “You have to study, immerse yourself in the community that you are in, if you want to be seen as something other than a journalist — and I think that’s important because I am a son, father, friend and a lot of other things other than a journalist. It is very important to me but it’s not the only thing that I am. If you want to be seen that way in your community, you need to get plugged into your community, so that they can see you, experience you in different contexts.”

Another question came about regarding anonymous sources and when to use them. All the panelists agreed it is important to use them sparingly and to make sure you know everything about the source. 

“If we can’t discern a clear motive to disseminate information that is important for the public to know then it’s not a story,” Garcia said.

While they should ethically be used sparingly, the First Amendment does allow for some mistakes, although the public may not and public relations issues can arise.

“[The First Amendment is] structured to say, ‘People are going to make mistakes,’ and if we say you can’t make a mistake, we might as well all go home because the standard of perfection is not one that we can attain,” Lubell said. “It’s not going to allow for the free flow of information, which leads to all these end goals of ours, having an informed citizenry and participation in government. It is to take accountability and responsibility for those mistakes and then to draw the line about what kind of mistake was avoidable.”

The discussion eventually took a turn beyond the First Amendment. Recently, journalists have been attacked or seriously injured while doing their job, most notably during Black Lives Matter protests. Here, there is not a lot of legal protection, but preparing for the worst is key.

“A lot of this is about education, how to just engage in self care. A standard protocol is, if you know you’re writing a story that is likely to trigger certain people, we as an organization are aware of that,” Lubell said. “Make sure you’re engaging in some set of digital hardening of various tools that you have. Check your Twitter, your email, maybe log out of your Twitter account because you’re about to see some really horrible things come your way … In general, we are a little bit oppositional to government … [but] I’ve sent reporters to their local police stations to make sure you know them.”

Lubell added that journalists may need to call the FBI once in a while, for security, but there is still very little they can do.

Despite the potential scares of journalism, especially in today’s climate, every single panelist adores their job. To end the 16th annual Dr. Lewis B. O’Donnell Media Summit on a positive note, each panelist was asked to provide the students watching with a bit of advice.

“Don’t be afraid to take intelligent risks. It is very easy to do what everybody else is doing and try to stand out in that particular way. Don’t do that. Take a risk that you think is going to place you wherever you want to go,” Brown said. “If you feel like the world needs to change, and certainly a lot of people do … this is the conduit by which change can happen. It’s the powerful stories. Journalism has taken down presidencies. It has overthrown governments. It has done all manner of things with just words.”

Photo provided by Lily Clark via the Dr. Lewis B. O’Donnell Media Summit