Vocabulary. Read both articles again, find the following words and word combinations in the text and learn their meaning. Use these words in the further discussion of the problem.

1.

A gift for smth, a fellow intern, a reprimand, sloppy reporting, to cover smth (in mass media), disbelief, to cross paths, moving, vivid, a falsification, to assign smb to do smth, to fabricate smth, to concoct (a scene), a columnist, plagiarism, to be convicted on … counts, to address smth, meticulous, to come under scrutiny, to root for smb, in all likelihood.

2.

A showdown, a revelation, to lift quotes, to fake smth, to come in contact with smb, to brag about smth, a deputy editor, a staff reporter, to hit the roof, (a) high-profile (assignment), to push smth to the breaking point, to plagiarize, to confront smb about smth, considering smth, a celebrity.

Discussion

1. Are the images of Jayson Blair created in Article 1 and Article 2 different? If so, how do they differ? What devices do the authors use to create this or that image?

2. How can you explain that Blair was not fired but promoted to the position of the New York Times staff reporter in 2001 even though some of his falsifications had come to light?

3. Do you think the authors of Article 1 and Article 2 had different aims when they were writing their stories? What were these aims? What made you come to your conclusion?

4. Which article do you like better? Why?

5. What do you think makes a good article?

6. Comment on the titles of the articles. Which do you like better?

Professional Reading

11. Read the following article very carefully. You must achieve complete understanding of the text, so use a dictionary by all means. While reading find the following words and word combinations in the text and learn their meaning. Use these words in the further discussion of the problem.

An interim ban, to make an assertion, a writ, an implication, (a) restrictive (law), to be applicable, libel, to award an injunction, to surge/come to the fore.

German Court Issues Gagging Order on Mail on Sunday over Schröder

In what is believed to be the first case of its kind, a British paper faced being silenced by a ruling handed down by a foreign judge.

A lawyer acting for the German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, announced on January 14, 2003, that he had won an injunction from a court in Hamburg forbidding the publishers of the Mail on Sunday from reporting on aspects of the chancellor’s private life.

Michael Nasselhauf said that the interim ban applied to six assertions made in an article published by the paper, which linked the chancellor to a famous German television interviewer. Mr Nasselhauf said that if the paper ignored the injunction it would be fined £164,000.

John Wellington, the paper’s managing editor, reacted defiantly: “I can’t think of any other case like this. Our view is that we publish in Britain for British readers and we don’t see why the chancellor should be able to tell our readers what they can and cannot read.” Mr Wellington said the Mail on Sunday had not so far received a writ from Mr Schröder. “We had a letter from his lawyer asking us if we would not repeat certain things said in our article,” he said. “We have not been served with anything and our lawyers are investigating to see what implications this has for us.”

The case was a prime example of something about which the Mail on Sunday and other papers had long been complaining: the step-by-step extension to Britain of laws made on the continent. In this instance, and apparently for the first time, it was German highly restrictive privacy law.

A leading expert in the field, Michael Smyth of Clifford Chance, said it was not uncommon in commercial cases for judges in one country to set conditions applicable in another. But he added: “I am not aware of any libel or press law case in which an injunction has been won in Country A against a newspaper group headquartered in Country B. But the law permits Chancellor Schröder to do it because the EU treats Europe as one jurisdiction.”

The Mail on Sunday’s story was reported on in several German newspapers. “Mr Schröder faces a choice. He could sue in Germany or in Britain. I don’t see that this injunction would have been awarded in London had he applied to a British court,” Mr Smyth said.

The chancellor’s private life surged to the fore when he announced that he was seeking an injunction against an east German regional daily to prevent it from repeating a claim that his marriage was in difficulties. A hearing on his application was held in Berlin.

The magazine Stern published an interview with Mr Schröder’s fourth wife, Doris, flatly denying the claims.

The private lives of Germany’s politicians are strictly protected under laws and are rarely mentioned in the media. But more than one commentator protested that the Schröders themselves blurred the line between private and public in the general election campaign, when Doris Schröder-Kopf, a former political journalist, played an unusually prominent role in her husband’s campaign.

(From ‘The Guardian’)

Answer the following questions and present your own commentary on the given points.

1. Can you single out the specific implicating information the Mail on Sunday published about the German Chancellor? What was it?

2. Find the following quotation in the article: “Mr Nesselhauf said that if the Mail on Sunday ignored the injunction it would be fined.” What does ‘ignoring the injunction’ mean in this particular case?

3. The implicating information was published. Will the newspaper be fined?

4. Find the following quotation: “We have not been served with anything and our lawyers are investigating to see what implications this has for us.” What were they to be served with?

5. Find and comment on the quotation: “But the law permits Chancellor Schröder to do it because the EU treats Europe as one jurisdiction.”

6. Why did it happen so that Schröder’s private life was commented on in the German media despite Germany’s highly restrictive privacy law?

7. Why couldn’t ‘The Guardian’ specify what implicating information had been published in the Mail on Sunday?