WASHINGTON – For 105 days, beginning in December 2021, Afghan-American Safi Rauf lived in an 8×8-foot cell in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan with few connections to the outside world.
Now, he is running a 24-hour “fireguard” with dozens of other volunteers outside the United States Capitol to raise support for the Afghan Adjustment Act.
The bipartisan bill, introduced in both the House and the Senate, would provide Afghans who worked with the United States during the 20-year war in Afghanistan a clear path to legal residency.
The Afghan Adjustment Act was not included in the stopgap spending bill to fund the federal government after Friday. Supporters hope it will be included in the upcoming defense policy bill or an expected continuing resolution in December.
The Department of Homeland Security reports that approximately 82,000 Afghans have been evacuated to the United States since the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s rise to power.
Most evacuees live in this country under humanitarian parole status, which normally lasts two years. The bill would allow Afghans who pass additional vetting to apply for permanent legal status.
Rauf, a Navy reservist and the founder and president of Human First Coalition, a nonprofit that works to provide humanitarian aid and resettlement assistance to vulnerable Afghans, estimates his organization has evacuated over 10,000 people from Afghanistan in the last year.
The nonprofit chartered several flights after U.S. forces left Afghanistan. But when visiting the country for a planning trip last December, Rauf and his brother, Anees Khalil, who also works for Human First Coalition, were taken hostage by the Taliban and tortured.
“You cannot prepare for something like that,” he told Capital News Service. “Every day was incredibly hard. Initially, they put us in a basement that was not really fit for living. It was just a basement that did not have any ventilation, any blankets, any mattresses.”
Rauf said he and his brother were forced to go a month without showering while wearing the same clothes.
Bathroom breaks were scheduled and supervised, and meals were scarce – meager portions of tea, rice, beans, and bread. Rauf said his captors left the lights on all day. He spent most of his time lying down, marking a calendar he scrawled on the wall.
The brothers eventually attempted multiple hunger strikes to protest their treatment.
Eventually, the U.S. government secured the brothers’ release on April 1.
“Our world basically stopped on December 18,” Rauf said. “When I got out on April 1st, the world had moved on.”
Still, Rauf cannot slow down. He is haunted by the hundreds of calls he still receives from Afghans begging for help.
“I’m still getting chaotic messages from people who are scared for their lives,” he said. “The administration is doing their best, but how do you work with a de-facto authority that doesn’t recognize human rights?”
In folding chairs outside the Capitol building, former Afghan pilots and parliamentary members are among the volunteers who help themselves to traditional Afghan food while petitioning for the legislation’s passage. The American flag waves alongside the Afghan flag in front of a folding table with information about the bill.
On Thursday evening, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, who introduced the bill in the Senate, came out to the lawn for an impromptu visit with the group.
Addressing the volunteers, who included members of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security, Women for Afghan Women, and various former military members, Kloubacher thanked the group for continuing to campaign for Afghans.
“I thank you for sitting out here on the lawn to remind our colleagues that promises made, promises kept,” she said, her hand upon the shoulder of an Afghan woman. “And there (are) promises made to the people who stood on the side of democracy and freedom with our military in Afghanistan.”
By EVE SAMPSON
Capital News Service
Former Loudoun County Superintendent Found Guilty
Scott Ziegler Faces Potential Jail Time for Retaliatory Teacher Firing.
A turn of events in Loudoun County as a jury declares Scott Ziegler, the former Loudoun County Superintendent, guilty. Ziegler was charged with a class one misdemeanor, specifically for the retaliatory termination of a school teacher.
The trial, which caught the attention of many, has been the subject of numerous discussions, given the implications it has for school governance and the potential consequences of mismanagement. Facing the weight of the jury’s decision, Ziegler might have to serve up to a year in jail or be liable to pay a fine of $2,500. His fate will be sealed on January 4th, 2024, when the court is scheduled to announce his sentence.
Loudoun County Public Schools and its School Board were unfortunately thrust into the media’s glare nearly two years ago, not for achievements, but controversies. The missteps and oversight from the school’s management resulted in what many believe was an unfair firing of a passionate and devoted school teacher, Erin Brooks. The trial and subsequent guilty verdict have offered a semblance of closure and justice to Brooks and those who supported her.
Attorney General Jason Miyares shared his perspective on the outcome, stating, “Justice has finally been served in Loudoun County. […] Today, my office brought a measure of justice for Erin Brooks.” Miyares further expressed gratitude for the jury’s decision and assured that his office would consistently stand as an advocate for victims, striving for justice and fairness.
The Loudoun County case, with its intricacies and implications, has been a stark reminder of the necessity for transparent and just governance in educational institutions. The outcome serves as a precedent, emphasizing the importance of accountability at every level of the educational system. As the community awaits the sentencing in January, many hope this verdict will pave the way for more equitable and just actions in schools across the country.
Judge Blocks Parts of New Maryland Gun Law That Goes Into Effect Sunday
ANNAPOLIS, Md. – A federal court judge Friday blocked parts of a new Maryland law that limits areas where gun owners in Maryland are allowed to carry concealed or open-wear firearms just as it was set to go into effect on Sunday.
The Maryland Gun Safety Act of 2023 prevents gun owners from taking firearms into schools, hospitals, government buildings, businesses selling alcohol or cannabis, stadiums, museums, racetracks, and video lottery facilities.
However, in a lawsuit opposing the legislation filed in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, Judge George Levi Russell III issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the provisions pertaining to where alcohol is sold, near public demonstrations, and in private establishments without the owner’s consent. The suit was filed by Susannah Kipke of Pasadena, the wife of Del. Nicholaus Kipke, R-Anne Arundel, and the Maryland Rifle and Pistol Association.
The ruling means that gun owners may continue to carry their weapons in bars, restaurants, demonstrations, and on private property without the owners’ consent as the lawsuit progresses.
“Today’s injunction is a win for public safety in Maryland,” said Senate Minority Leader Steve Hershey, R-Kent, Queen Anne’s, Caroline and Cecil. “Maryland Democrats continue to pass unconstitutional laws to strip away the rights of law-abiding citizens while trying to pass it off as public safety legislation.”
The portion of the law that was blocked requires business owners to give express permission or a clear and conspicuous sign indicating that firearms are allowed on the property. The injunction reverts back to the previous law, in which businesses would have to state if they ban firearms.
“There needs to be a clear line where guns are and are not allowed in public,” said Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher, D-Montgomery, who sponsored the law, which began as the bill SB1. “Senate Bill One (The Maryland Gun Safety Act) clearly delineates between the places where firearms are allowed and where firearms are not allowed.”
Waldstreicher referred reporters to the state Attorney General’s Office for comments on the judge’s ruling.
“We are pleased that the court upheld many of SB 1’s common-sense provisions aimed at keeping Marylanders safe from the scourge of gun violence. The Office of the Attorney General will continue to vigorously defend all provisions of SB 1,” said Jennifer Donelan, a spokesperson for the Maryland Attorney General’s Office.
The remainder of the bill will go into effect as planned on Sunday. Certain individuals are exempt from the law, including law enforcement, members of the U.S. Armed Forces, an employee of an armored car company, or a person who has retired as a law enforcement official in good standing from a law enforcement agency.
The bill was prompted by The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. That ruling rendered Maryland’s previous concealed carry law unconstitutional.
The court’s 6-3 decision in Bruen overturned a New York gun law requiring “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry concealed weapons in public places, declaring it unconstitutional.
Waldstreicher’s bill was written to fit the restraints outlined in the Bruen decision and is part of Gov. Wes Moore’s “all-of-the-above” approach to public safety, he said.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen really weakened what was a strong concealed-carry permitting law in Maryland,” said Ellen Ginsberg, a volunteer state legislative lead for the Moms Demand Action Maryland. “This is a really important step to make sure that Marylanders and families in Maryland have places where they can meet and gather without the risk of a firearm changing their lives forever.”
Opponents consistently questioned the constitutionality of the law, saying it failed to meet the standards in the Bruen decision.
“The bill will do little to curb the rate of violent crime in Maryland,” said House Republicans in a letter to Moore. “The members of our Caucus are willing partners in making Maryland safer. Senate Bill 1 is not the way.”
Opponents of SB1 often cite the proliferation of illegal guns as an argument against The Maryland Gun Safety Act, arguing that it only makes it harder for legal gun owners to defend themselves.
“In my humble opinion, I just think that when we were thinking about illegal guns on the streets, I’m not sure that this was the best posture to move in,” said Sen. Cory V. McCray, D-Baltimore City, one of three Senate Democrats who voted against the bill.
Gun ownership is a heavily regulated space, and legal gun owners with a significant amount of training are not the immediate problem, according to McCray.
Waldstreicher responded that tackling the issue of illegal guns is not hindered by the Maryland Gun Safety Act.
“We can walk and chew gum at the same time,” said Waldstreicher. “We can both respond to Bruen in a constitutional and responsible way, as well as pass legislation and policies to get illegal guns off our streets.”
From 2011 to 2020, the rate of gun deaths increased by 46% in Maryland, compared to 33% nationwide, according to Everytown For Gun Safety.
Waldstreicher said he’s not done tinkering with the state’s gun laws, given the tragic statistics, and he is already looking toward the next legislative session in January.
“There are a series of next steps that involve earlier youth intervention, cracking down on illegal weapons entering our community from other states,” said Waldstreicher, “enforcing against ghost guns as well as gun manufacturer liability.”
By TOMMY TUCKER
Capital News Service
Maryland Lawmakers Push to Designate the Chesapeake Bay as a National Recreation Area
WASHINGTON – The Chesapeake Bay could see a boost in status under legislation introduced this summer to designate the region as a National Recreation Area.
Sponsored by Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, and Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Maryland, the Chesapeake National Recreation Area Act would allow the National Park Service to bring into its network sites in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which covers over 60,000 square miles across six states and Washington, D.C. Sites would be included either through donations or purchases, but the new designation would not affect the rights of other property owners along the watershed.
“We know that the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure, and it’s a global treasure,” Van Hollen said in an interview with Capital News Service. “We believe that by including this national treasure within the National Park Service system, we will ensure that it is protected in the future.”
Efforts to establish a Chesapeake National Recreation Area date back to the 2000s, when a study called for the bay to become a unit of the National Park Service. This year’s legislation also comes amid attempts to mitigate the declining health of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and efforts to highlight lesser-known parts of bay history, including the contributions of Native Americans and Black watermen to the ecosystem and economy.
The bill was created through a “unique process,” Van Hollen said. In 2021, in a practice uncommon among most lawmakers, he and Sarbanes created a working group to solicit feedback on what the legislation should look like.
The bill is currently in committee, but Van Hollen said a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers is “determined to get it over the finish line” by the end of this congressional session.
Currently, the park service administers certain sites in the watershed, including those designated as national monument units. The Chesapeake Gateways program, established through federal legislation in 1998, allows the park service to partner with and provide assistance to local and regional organizations involved in the bay.
But lawmakers are calling for the park service to play a larger and more administrative role, especially as they strive to tell previously untold stories about the watershed’s inhabitants.
“Right now, there’s no entity whose mission is to help tell the stories of the Chesapeake Bay,” Van Hollen said. “If you look at the Chesapeake Bay, in many ways, its history is a microcosm of our American history… so there are all sorts of stories.”
For Maryland residents like Vincent Leggett, whose families have been involved in those stories for generations as avid fishermen, shipbuilders, and dockworkers, the bill offers the promise of highlighting history that’s previously been passed over.
Leggett is a member of Blacks of the Chesapeake — an organization that aims to highlight Black history in the watershed — which was part of the working group for the bill.
“African Americans, I feel, were the backbone to the maritime and seafood industries here in the Chesapeake Bay region, but our stories were not elevated, nor were they exposed through our own voices,” Leggett said.
Leggett hopes that expanding the reach of the park service in the region will also draw these populations into bay conservation. Only 7% of the state’s bay shoreline is publicly accessible, he said, causing a “sense of alienation” for people of color in the region who can’t get involved in cleanup efforts.
According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, the main entity responsible for the conservation and restoration of the bay, there are 1,296 public access points to the body of water across its six watershed states and Washington, D.C.
The bill, if passed, would authorize the park service to administer additional landmarks in the Chesapeake Bay watershed — a step Van Hollen said would further improve public access to the bay.
Blacks of the Chesapeake has worked with state and federal lawmakers in Maryland on several projects along the bay, Leggett said, including planning a heritage park at the historically-Black Elktonia Beach in Annapolis and ensuring that Black history is highlighted at Whitehall Manor, which was built by enslaved individuals. Some of these sites, if acquired by the park service, could become highlights of a Chesapeake National Recreation Area.
The bill’s sponsors also touted the legislation as an opportunity to create jobs and enhance Maryland’s economy.
“By designating a unified National Recreation Area for the Chesapeake Bay, this legislation seeks to elevate the regional stories that shaped our nation’s history, promote the spirit of stewardship, improve public access, and spur economic growth across the bay region,” Sarbanes said in an e-mail to CNS.
The lawmakers have projected that turning the watershed into a park service unit will boost tourism in the region, augmenting its already major role in the Bay states’ economies. In Maryland, recreational boating generates an average of $2.03 billion and 32,025 jobs each year, and wildlife-watching excursions generate over $600 million a year, according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Leggett said that the bill is an opportunity to foster these industries while increasing awareness of the bay’s integral role in the region.
“I think that by bringing more attention to the Chesapeake Bay… it just generates so many millions of dollars and employment opportunities and tourism,” he said. “I think that as we endeavor to improve the water quality of the bay, that is going to enhance the fisheries, it is going to enhance heritage tourism and all of the related businesses that surround it.”
By SHIFRA DAYAK
Capital News Service
Kaine Warns 80K Childcare Spots Could Be Lost in Virginia If Federal Grant Program Expires
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats introduced a bill Wednesday to extend funding for five years for a pandemic-era childcare subsidy program set to expire at the end of the month.
The legislation would extend the child care stabilization grant program, which Congress established in 2021 to help childcare providers meet additional costs during the pandemic. The bill would provide $16 billion in mandatory funding each year for the next five years.
Congress initially provided $24 billion for the program as part of Democrats’ massive COVID-19 relief bill in 2021.
Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat and the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, joined by congressional colleagues, childcare providers, and advocates, called on Congress to act before this “lifeline” is cut off on Sept. 30, noting its economy-wide impact.
“When I say we need to act more urgently before things get worse — I don’t just mean parents are going to feel the pain or child care workers are going to feel the pain,” Murray said. “I mean, the entire U.S. economy is going to feel this.”
If this childcare funding ends, childcare providers may raise costs or not be able to continue serving families, Murray said, and parents may also be forced to leave their jobs to take care of their kids.
Too many people are forced to choose between their careers and caring for their children, said Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat and ranking member on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.
The bill attracted 35 co-sponsors in the Senate and 78 in the House. All the co-sponsors are Democrats except U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with the party.
“Over 3 million kids will be in danger of losing quality child care they have today” if Congress does not take action, said Sanders, the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “Over 230,000 childcare workers will be in danger of losing their jobs, and over 70,000 childcare facilities all over America will likely be shut down.”
Sanders said the country’s workforce crisis would only be worsened if childcare relief is cut off.
U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said about 80,000 children could lose childcare spots in Virginia, while nearly 2,800 early childhood education workers could see layoffs.
“We know if child care is accessible and it’s affordable, parents and our children survive,” said U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the leading Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. “So we need to keep up those investments to help parents. That is what our obligation is in this time of difficulty and struggle for people in the economy.”
Without a strong childcare industry, the economy will “cease to function,” DeLauro said.
Cynthia Davis, the founder and CEO of Kings and Queens Childcare Center in Washington, D.C., spoke at the press conference to explain how her business could be affected by a loss of funding.
Davis said that if relief runs out at the end of the month, her business could see layoffs, increased rates, or have to “drop out of the public child care program and start serving private families only.” Or her doors could close permanently, she said.
“This will devastate low-income and single-parent households and parents experiencing homelessness who hope to enroll their children in my program,” Davis said. “All children, no matter their family’s income level, deserve an equal chance at the start of their lives.”
U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat from New Jersey, recalled her experiences as a mother searching for affordable child care for her now 17-year-old daughter.
“I can remember it like it was yesterday,” Sherrill said. “That horrible feeling as I tried to find a place that I was comfortable leaving my baby girl and also could afford. And there were times when I paid my entire paycheck towards affording that quality child care.”
This is an issue that disproportionately affects women, said U.S. Rep. Jimmy Gomez, a California Democrat.
U.S. Rep. Jamaal Bowman, a New York Democrat and former middle school principal, said it is important to recognize the impact of quality child care on the individual lives of children. Without access to quality child care, he said, “children are more likely to be exposed to toxic stress and chronic trauma,” which can affect their brain development.
A disproportionate number of children with trauma are then placed in special education classes, as well as “being caught up in something we call the school-to-prison pipeline,” Bowman said.
“We do not and will not have a healthy democracy, a healthy society, and a healthy human race without investing in child care,” Bowman said.
by Samantha Dietel, Virginia Mercury
Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sarah Vogelsong for questions: email@example.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.
Maryland Gov Moore Says He No Interest in Higher Office; Talks Economy, Public Safety
WASHINGTON — Gov. Wes Moore fended off questions Tuesday on whether he’ll run in the 2024 Democratic presidential primary during an interview with global news organization Semafor, saying he had no interest in higher office and turning the subject to his nontraditional political background.
“I think it’s really important for people to remember that I am probably the most improbable governor in this country,” Moore said in answer to the first question from Semafor Cofounder and Editor-at-large Steve Clemons. “I’m a person who has never come from a political lineage.”
Moore, an author, nonprofit executive, and former Army officer, had not held political office before winning the governor’s election in 2022.
Moore turned his focus to Maryland, discussing plans to revive the state’s economy through targeted investments in its assets and better serve constituents with a data-driven approach to policy changes.
Moore often defines Maryland as “asset-rich and strategy-poor” and cites the contrast presented by the state’s high concentration of prominent institutions of higher education, military facilities, and government agencies, such as the National Security Agency, with its sluggish economic growth rate of .2% in the past 4 years. The current economic strategy of spreading funding across numerous projects “doesn’t make sense,” he said, explaining he’ll use a more focused approach.
In June, Moore established the Maryland Economic Council, charging it with creating economic recommendations by the next legislative session in January. After the General Assembly passed numerous measures to affect systemic budgetary changes during the last session, a report from the Department of Legislative Services predicted a $418 million structural deficit for fiscal year 2025.
Moore said his administration will use data to drive policy decisions, especially when looking to minimize socioeconomic disparities, and he used environmental injustice in Baltimore as an example.
“You can’t understand what these disparities look like if we aren’t able to fully appreciate the measure of intentionality that very much existed in the creation of that and the lack of intentionality when it comes to how we’re going to address it.”
The administration must consider the root causes of poverty, investing in transit, the public education system, and programs to combat the teacher shortage, Moore said, to jumpstart economic growth.
Creating new opportunities for young people to succeed in different areas will help fight juvenile crime and keep violence out of communities, Moore said. Using data and technology in innovative ways can also help ensure that solutions to crime are predictive rather than reactive.
Increasing public safety is his top priority, Moore said, highlighting the need for “appropriate intensity, absolute integrity, and full accountability” in the policing system as well as a need for crisis intervention teams to shift the response of mental health calls away from police officers. Over $100 million was invested directly in behavioral health, Moore said.
Moore noted that police officers respond to all situations, and many times, they are met with circumstances they cannot fix. He called for change, saying that public safety is partly a matter of creating a better livelihood for people.
Moore said his administration invested $122 million in local law enforcement, $17.5 million of which went to Baltimore City, where the police department has been under a federal agreement to make reforms since 2016. Moore also invested in intelligence sharing through the Maryland Coordination and Analysis Center and organized crime units.
In Baltimore, other reform means combating gun trafficking, filling the police shortage with well-trained officers, and developing more intentional solutions, said Moore, who places special importance on these issues as a Baltimore native.
“I love my state, all 24 jurisdictions. But I’m a Baltimorean,” Moore said. “That’s who I am. Can’t understand me if you don’t understand Baltimore.”
By KIERSTEN HACKER
Capital News Service
Journalism Educators, Trade Organizations Endorse Bipartisan Federal Shield Law
RICHMOND, Va. — Journalists could have more federal protections if a reintroduced shield law bill can pass Congress this term.
The PRESS Act would protect journalists, including citizen journalists, from federal court-ordered disclosure of information about a source. There are a handful of limitations such as information that could prevent an act of terrorism against the U.S., according to the bill.
The bill would also prevent important data on a reporter’s personal device from being seized without notice. The same would apply to data held by a covered service provider like a telecommunications company.
Both the House and Senate versions of the bill have bipartisan support. U.S. Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va, is a co-sponsor of the current iteration of the House bill. The House passed the original resolution introduced in 2021, but it failed to advance from a Senate committee. The Senate bill also did not advance last term.
Virginia is one of 10 states without a formal shield law, according to the legal group Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Currently, Virginia courts recognize a reporter’s privilege, meaning the right not to be compelled to testify or disclose sources and information in court. The proposed federal law may provide a model or incentive for a shield law at the state level, according to Mechelle Hankerson, president of the Society of Professional Journalists Virginia Pro Chapter.
“We’re sort of at the mercy of the courts’ whims and interpretations of situations and the First Amendment when we don’t have a shield law,” Hankerson said. “Even though the courts have ruled favorably for us as journalists, there’s no guarantee that that will continue.”
The national SPJ organization has advocated for a federal shield law for the past two decades, Hankerson said. One of the reasons it has been a slow process at both the federal and state levels is because many courts have ruled in favor of protecting journalists, which obscures the need for shield laws.
Del. Danica Roem, D-Prince William, attempted three times to establish a state shield law. A version that passed in 2020 was amended to apply protections in a criminal proceeding. The bill has specific parameters for the definition of a working journalist that are not found in the PRESS Act, such as that they must belong to a news organization.
“I don’t think that there is anything on the horizon or that has happened super recently in Virginia that makes us feel like we’re in danger if we don’t get a shield law on the books,” Hankerson said. “But it is something, the longer it’s not there, the more vulnerable we are as journalists.”
Protections given by shield laws such as the PRESS Act allow journalists and news organizations to establish trusted relationships with sources, according to Lin Weeks, a senior staff attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
The organization provides free counsel and legal resources to journalists to protect First Amendment freedoms and newsgathering rights, according to its website.
“If the government for courts or civil litigants can compel journalists to reveal the subjects of those conversations of their unpublished work product, that undermines journalists’ ability to do their job,” Weeks said.
The PRESS Act would codify some of the guardrails the Department of Justice has in place through its updated news media guidelines, which limit access to journalists’ records.
“With something like the DOJ guidelines, those can be changed without a legislative vote from administration to administration,” Weeks said. “Whereas, the PRESS Act would last through multiple administrations.”
The bill shields both professional and citizen journalists from being forced to disclose their sources by broadly defining a journalist to include any person who regularly gathers or records information with the intention of public dissemination.
Genelle Belmas holds a doctorate in mass communication and is a professor of media law at the University of Kansas. A broad definition is a good thing, Belmas said. Any individual who gathers and organizes information to disseminate it to the public should be protected in the same way as a journalist with a major or local news organization.
“The bigger question, as some people have suggested, is: ‘Are you committing acts of journalism?’” Belmas said.
The First Amendment doesn’t make those distinctions, she said.
A number of trade organizations have endorsed the bill, including the News/Media Alliance, Radio Television Digital News Association, and the National Association of Broadcasters. Two international journalism educator organizations recently announced support.
The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication and the Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication stated the bill “empowers the media to play its essential role as a watchdog holding our government accountable.”
AEJMC and ASJMC announced to their members that they plan to lobby to support the bill.
By Emily Richardson
Capital News Service
Capital News Service is a program of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Robertson School of Media and Culture. Students in the program provide state government coverage for a variety of media outlets in Virginia.