Jump to content

New Station Directive: 'Regarding Freedom of the Press '


Recommended Posts

Security and Command as of late have been targeting journalists with trumped up charges, instant-censors and D-Notices without the ability to fight this as a journalist. If you are a journalist, a censor immediately erases pretty hard work you did, and a D-Notice ends your career for the round (you CANT make another channel without admin intervention)


I propose a directive similar to this (obviously better written):

 

Regarding Freedom of the Press

In order to promote greater dissemination of knowledge among our employees, the corporation has decided to formally allot a position on board for an accredited journalist. These individuals have the right to report on events taking place on board, and within reason - photograph crew related to these events. Corporate reporters are trusted public relations employees and should be accorded the respect of any other colleague, it is suggested that Station Command work alongside them to ensure the crew is aware of the facility's on goings. Freelance journalists are external contractors, and may be left to their own devices.


Censorship of articles or authors should be reserved for articles that are proven to be slanderous, at the discretion of the Head of Security or Captain.


NanoTrasen D-Notices should be reserved for news feeds that directly impact the operational security of the facility.


Unauthorized or unreasonable censorship/D-Notices may be charged with vandalism and/or slander, due to the harm that such actions can cause to a journalist's career.

Link to comment

and a D-Notice ends your career for the round (you CANT make another channel without admin intervention)

 

I forgot this was a thing. I'm honestly rubbing my hands and going "NEHEHEHE" having been reminded that I can do this to combat someone who really likes using the newscaster as a pedestal to launch their slander upon.


Anyway, what I described isn't necessarily a good thing and I wouldn't mind journalists getting some leeway or at least there to be guidelines regarding how to escalate rather than hitting a channel with a D-notice.

Link to comment

and a D-Notice ends your career for the round (you CANT make another channel without admin intervention)

 

I forgot this was a thing. I'm honestly rubbing my hands and going "NEHEHEHE" having been reminded that I can do this to combat someone who really likes using the newscaster as a pedestal to launch their slander upon.


Anyway, what I described isn't necessarily a good thing and I wouldn't mind journalists getting some leeway or at least there to be guidelines regarding how to escalate rather than hitting a channel with a D-notice.

 

I'm mainly writing this because I've seen a few heads of staff try to overly protect security. I've seen journalists get D-Noticed or censored for reporting when Security did something like arrest someone without a warrant - even though this was clearly true, and is clearly against regs for security to do - just because they want to protect security's image. It's really sucks that they get abused this way.

Link to comment

It does suck, yes. I will note that the newscasters designed to D-list are quite uncommon in security though. I believe the warden may have one and the HOS may also have one. I don't think there's one anywhere else because it would be a travesty if security officers could censor by themselves.


If they can't, it means the HOS/warden/captain are solely responsible.

Link to comment

I like this idea, I just feel there needs to be a sliiiight change in wording.

 

Regarding Freedom of the Press

In order to promote greater dissemination of knowledge among our employees, the corporation has decided to...

 

Capitalist corporations being what they are, it seems unlikely they would decide to instate a regulation like this of their own volition. Hell, Nanotrasen would still execute criminals if given the legal chance. Perhaps word it to explain that Tau Ceti law requires freedom of certified press, as long as it presents nothing but empirical facts.


This way, journalists have some legal grounding to avoid being censored, and can be used to raise RP tension across the station if the 'security officer beat a crew member to death' story suddenly goes dark for no reason.


Though, re-reading the post, it gives off a more 'Command sponsored propaganda newcast' than anything else.

Link to comment

Removes the Journalist alt-title from Librarian.

Adds the Corporate Reporter job and the Freelance Journalist alt-title. Corporate Reporters have more liability and responsibility, but have greater access and legitimacy. Freelance journalists have no such restrictions, but are all on their own. To add to this, there are now two press passes- a normal and a corporate one. These do not guarantee you anything from Security or Command, however, so be warned!

 

We just added two new job titles in place of the old journalist title. This seems like something that a freelance journalist would have. Corporate reporters probably CANT write anything negative about the company.

Link to comment

Honestly, this does seem like a really good and really helpful idea. The journalist and media can actually be a very good role for keeping the crew informed. Like Garn said though, Corporate Reporters probably wouldn't be able to write bad about the company, while it would be something you'd expect journalists to do instead. Rev rounds, for instance, could make the role shine quite a bit. Having a journalist on your side can be a powerful tool of persuasion. But it's completely invalidated if Security just slap a censor or D-notice on you, and then you're BASICALLY unofficially demoted to assistant for the rest of the round.

Adding legal protections for Freelance Journalists really sounds like a really really good idea.

Link to comment

As much as I vowed in Discord never to make a Directive 10, I'm generally supportive of this. I need to think about exactly how I'd like something like this to be worded. Looking forward to seeing more input here from the command/security perspective as well.

Link to comment

I'm sorry, I know it frustrates you that your security-bashing channel is getting D-listed, but... why would a private corporate research station have to enforce freedom of press regulations? There's no benefit to them to having their security team or command stuff blatantly mudraked, and it makes perfect sense for them to censor news articles posted only within the corporate station and views by employees they have jurisdiction over. The newscasters are owned by NT, if you are making the company look bad, it's going to get censored.


Perhaps journalists need to find an inoffensive way to report issues or not directly take on security by passive aggressively claiming their corruption.

Link to comment

I'm sorry, I know it frustrates you that your security-bashing channel is getting D-listed, but... why would a private corporate research station have to enforce freedom of press regulations? There's no benefit to them to having their security team or command stuff blatantly mudraked, and it makes perfect sense for them to censor news articles posted only within the corporate station and views by employees they have jurisdiction over. The newscasters are owned by NT, if you are making the company look bad, it's going to get censored.


Perhaps journalists need to find an inoffensive way to report issues or not directly take on security by passive aggressively claiming their corruption.

 

All democratic nations have freedom of the press enshrined in their highest laws. Reporters are under this, so it would make sense if NT had to support this because it was a law.


I do not make security bashing channels - I report on Security if they do something wrong, this isn't bashing - it's genuinely what reporters do. We added the job, and we added it to be played - not to be shutdown whenever they do their job.


I personally love when reporters report on bad-sec as Captain, it does my job for me and provides evidence most of the time.

Link to comment
Guest Marlon Phoenix

I spoke at length with @Garnascus regarding the new journalist roles. This is what we have decided could be a great dynamic for both of the roles of corporate journalist, and freelance journalist.


The Corporate Journalist has basic access to all departments. Their guide (and intro blurb) encourage them to put a positive NT-friendly spin on their stories. They are here for morale and to make the corporation look good. They can be d-noticed and their news stories censored freely by the Captain. Because they are a private agent of the corporation, they are not granted freedom of the press.


Freelance journalists are conceptualized like the Merchant; they are detached from the station command. They have no extra access outside the office. But with their lack of access, they have a lot of freedom. They can report as they see fit. Their channels cannot be given a d-notice. They cannot be censored. They are not beholden to station command, and can't be fired by the captain of head of personnel. The only legal recourse to stop the reporting of a freelance journalist is by having Central Command grant the authority to dunk on them, just like we have to ask CC to legally dunk on merchants. Otherwise, it is very easy to punish an annoying freelance journalist by simply not working with them. If all they do is post negative stories, then you can sideline them. Without their access they do not have the ability to get as much of a scoop as corporate journalists.


This, to us, seems like a pretty good dynamic between both jobs. Freelancers are covered by freedom of the press, corporate journalists are not.

Link to comment

I spoke at length with @Garnascus regarding the new journalist roles. This is what we have decided could be a great dynamic for both of the roles of corporate journalist, and freelance journalist.


The Corporate Journalist has basic access to all departments. Their guide (and intro blurb) encourage them to put a positive NT-friendly spin on their stories. They are here for morale and to make the corporation look good. They can be d-noticed and their news stories censored freely by the Captain. Because they are a private agent of the corporation, they are not granted freedom of the press.


Freelance journalists are conceptualized like the Merchant; they are detached from the station command. They have no extra access outside the office. But with their lack of access, they have a lot of freedom. They can report as they see fit. Their channels cannot be given a d-notice. They cannot be censored. They are not beholden to station command, and can't be fired by the captain of head of personnel. The only legal recourse to stop the reporting of a freelance journalist is by having Central Command grant the authority to dunk on them, just like we have to ask CC to legally dunk on merchants. Otherwise, it is very easy to punish an annoying freelance journalist by simply not working with them. If all they do is post negative stories, then you can sideline them. Without their access they do not have the ability to get as much of a scoop as corporate journalists.


This, to us, seems like a pretty good dynamic between both jobs. Freelancers are covered by freedom of the press, corporate journalists are not.

 

Love this, yes please.

Link to comment

The only legal recourse to stop the reporting of a freelance journalist is by having Central Command grant the authority to dunk on them, just like we have to ask CC to legally dunk on merchants. Otherwise, it is very easy to punish an annoying freelance journalist by simply not working with them. If all they do is post negative stories, then you can sideline them. Without their access they do not have the ability to get as much of a scoop as corporate journalists.

 

I was semi-involved in this discussion with other staffs. I'll speak a little bit from law's technicalities, not that I care but I'll say it anyways. A company is not required to to exercise Freedom of the Press. NanoTrasen isn't a country, it's a corporation. Like any companies, they can choose to censor any news material. However, I do not like the idea of freelance journalist being able to write whatever and however they like against NanoTrasen or other political issues from inside. Because you are unable to D-Notice or Delete a post from the Newscaster which will render the Security to come up with a different alternative to approach this. A security officer could even take their ID even if it's against or with Corporate Regulations. There was a similar situation regarding Cargo Bay's storage with contained contraband, Security often seized their contraband until admin had to step in and tell them no, then a directive in place to prevent them doing so and this became a norm.


So to say, consider me very skeptical about this. I like the other suggestion in Jackboot's idea however this appears to be a glaring issue.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Imma be an ass and ping everyone involved in this. [mention]Senpai Jackboot[/mention][mention]Garnascus[/mention][mention]Sharp[/mention] the mechanical end of this has been implemented: Corp Reporters have wider access. D-notice restrictions are not mechanically enforced at the moment, as it's really ugly code and I'd rather see policy enforce it anyways. (Note that the policy needs to exist anyways.)


So uh. Ball's in your court. And probably in the court of the CCIAA.

Link to comment
Guest Marlon Phoenix

My concern is that policy flies out the window during red alert. If garnascus and aboshehebaboebeob are able to have the admins and mods jump on command who dnotice freelancers without CCIA approval then i can be comfortable.

Link to comment

The issue of not having D-notices mechanically available can potentially end in retardations like journalists publicly assisting terrorists. Ideally those would be the only cases where D-notices for journalists would fly under whatever policy is implemented. So it should buff out.


And no, IMO, this is perfectly fine as being left as an IC thing initially. Dick journalists get canned by the CCIA, dick Captains get canned by the CCIA. Everyone wins.

Link to comment


And no, IMO, this is perfectly fine as being left as an IC thing initially. Dick journalists get canned by the CCIA, dick Captains get canned by the CCIA. Everyone wins.

 

Wrong. Dick Captains cannot get canned by the CCIA if the news is in regards to antags - which is most of the news that would ever get D-Noticed.


Wrong. CCIA almost always side with Captains, even if they are minorly in the wrong.


Please make it mechanical.

Link to comment


And no, IMO, this is perfectly fine as being left as an IC thing initially. Dick journalists get canned by the CCIA, dick Captains get canned by the CCIA. Everyone wins.

 

Wrong. Dick Captains cannot get canned by the CCIA if the news is in regards to antags - which is most of the news that would ever get D-Noticed.


Wrong. CCIA almost always side with Captains, even if they are minorly in the wrong.


Please make it mechanical.

 

I'd rather have myself proven wrong first, before I start adding really fiddly mechanics to code. Regardless, it needs policy anyways.

Link to comment
Guest Marlon Phoenix

The issue of not having D-notices mechanically available can potentially end in retardations like journalists publicly assisting terrorists. Ideally those would be the only cases where D-notices for journalists would fly under whatever policy is implemented. So it should buff out.


And no, IMO, this is perfectly fine as being left as an IC thing initially. Dick journalists get canned by the CCIA, dick Captains get canned by the CCIA. Everyone wins.

 

If a journalist is assisting terrorists as a non-antag, can't they be bwoinked?


Once red alert hits, paperwork-based policies go flying out the window. I strongly suggest it be a mechanical prevention but I am also of the mind that as long as there is proactive protection of the freelance journalists by staff against zealous command, that it could be fine. I am worried about "it's an IC issue" ruining the freelance journalists' freedom due to zealous D-noticing from command. Journalists are helpless in the face of a d-notice and have no ic recourse in antag rounds. we will see.

Link to comment

The issue of not having D-notices mechanically available can potentially end in retardations like journalists publicly assisting terrorists. Ideally those would be the only cases where D-notices for journalists would fly under whatever policy is implemented. So it should buff out.


And no, IMO, this is perfectly fine as being left as an IC thing initially. Dick journalists get canned by the CCIA, dick Captains get canned by the CCIA. Everyone wins.

 

If a journalist is assisting terrorists as a non-antag, can't they be bwoinked?


Once red alert hits, paperwork-based policies go flying out the window. I strongly suggest it be a mechanical prevention but I am also of the mind that as long as there is proactive protection of the freelance journalists by staff against zealous command, that it could be fine. I am worried about "it's an IC issue" ruining the freelance journalists' freedom due to zealous D-noticing from command. Journalists are helpless in the face of a d-notice and have no ic recourse in antag rounds. we will see.

 

One time offences of specific journalists overstepping their bounds should handled IC, IMO. Lest we continue this shit of keeping the CCIA as uninvolved in but the most trivial of IC infractions, and elevating the rest onto OOC issues. Outside of a journalist being an outright meme, I do not see a reason to deem their misconduct an OOC issue, when you consider that we have the CCIA for exactly cases like this.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...