http://66.225.205.104/JR20110202.mp3
When Charlotte police arrested Jonathan Fitzgerald for murder last August, the cameras were rolling for a cable reality show called The First 48. Crews have been following CMPD's homicide unit around for the last year. Now the attorney for Jonathan Fitzgerald wants those tapes - some 20 hours of raw footage. He argues the video isn't protected by the state's shield law for journalists because it was shot in coordination with CMPD. He says the department would have motivation to persuade producers to cut footage that would hurt the case. The argument raises interesting questions for Charles Coble, a media law attorney in Raleigh. Click here to listen. The follwing is a transcript of their conversation: Charles Coble: It is quite interesting to me, actually. I've not heard of a case quite like this, where they're essentially arguing that the reality show and the law enforcement agency are one in the same, where they're agents with one another. Julie Rose: What seems to make this case kind of interesting, perhaps unusual here in Charlotte, is that the police department has signed a contract with the TV show that gives the police department the right to review a rough cut of each episode. The police department is not getting paid by the TV show, but apparently, according to the contract, does have some control over the end product? Coble: I'm not sure that that matters, at least to how I would look at the issues in the case, because the contract is clear the material is the TV series material. Whatever footage they take, they retain ultimate editorial control over what they air, and at least as I read the contract, I didn't see that the police department had unfettered access to all of the footage or retain copies for its files, or even necessarily that they saw everything. As I read it, it said they had the right to review the rough cut of the actual episode that was going to air, which is, I think, something less than what the defense attorneys have asked for, which is everything. And I think that by catching it that way, it would appear to be an effort to avoid North Carolina Shield Statute, which makes it difficult to obtain information from news organizations through use of subpoenas. Rose: It sounds like you don't think that is any different than if it just happened to be the local news camera crew that happened to be on the scene of a crime and was rolling tape, and captured some footage. Or is it different, the fact that there is a relationship, a contract with the police department for this reality TV show, whereas the local news has no contract. Coble: Well, I mean, I would certainly acknowledge that that changes the typical distance between a journalist and his or her source. You wouldn't normally expect contracts of this sort; I mean, you might have agreements for confidentiality or other agreements of that sort between a reporter and source. But in this case, it certainly gives the defense attorney material to argue that it's not a traditional journalist situation, therefore it ought to fall outside the typical rubric for looking at these types of questions. I mean, I guess I would continue to go back, however, to the way our statutes define journalist is quite broad. You know, engaged in the business of gathering, compiling writing, etc., information for dissemination via any news medium. So, in this particular case, a show that is recording images and information about actual police investigations and airing those is something that can fit within that definition. Rose: Right, so reality television shows, even dramatic shows with a documentary edge, blogging, can all be protected in some way under the North Carolina Shield Law, it sounds like. Coble: Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say any reality show. I mean, I think that there are limits to the language of the statute. I mean, I think you can stretch it too far, and I think that too some degree that the rise of these reality sort of shows that follow famous people or follow the police departments or government agencies, I think that there's a much more now of a blend between information and entertainment, and it's harder to argue in absolutes on either side of the equation as you get more into this hazy world of who ought to have these traditional media protections.