|
Com 310: Kids, Courts and Popular Culture |
Copyright, 2002
Dr. Janet McMullen
Updated: Friday, May 03, 2002 Reading Assignment: Day, Chapters 11, 12, 13
Kids and Television
What are the special considerations media practitioners must have with regard to children?
I hope you will take some time to think about this. Do you have children yourself? Do you have younger brothers or sisters? Nieces or nephews? What are you concerned about with their exposure to media? Are you concerned about the media the PEOPLE to whom they are exposed are using? Would you leave a movie like Scream on the television if a four-year old were in the room? Would you want an X-rated movie theatre next door to your home if there were children in it?
As you go through the answers to those questions, you're beginning to address this issue.
These notes are to guide your reading of the text, so they won't be as detailed as some others.
What is cultural paternalism?
Is it important to society as a whole?
For what segments is it particularly important?
What did John Locke say about protecting children?
The society's attitude about the special status of children is changing. In what ways? Why?
Children are different:
they process information differently
they lack experience
they truly do not understand many of the realities and consequences of life. (For example, a five year old is only beginning to understand the difference between fantasy and reality...Mickey Mouse is real/not real.)
Should children be protected? Treated differently?
Media has been shown to have significant effects in the lives of children. We discuss this in detail in Com 314 and 316. See the http://fly.hiwaay.net/~jmcmulle/314.htm for a link to a lecture on media effects on children. We have also discussed those issues in this class as well. Media have effects related to
violence
self-esteem
social expectations
problem solving
educational performance
the entire socializing process.
10 Point Extra Credit Option:
In one or two pages, examine your own life and think about how mass media [ TV, films, music, books, etc. ] influenced your life. How did they affect:
who you wanted to be
who you came to be
who you thought you were expected to be
Please take some time with this assignment. It's not an automatic 10 points just for turning it in. I want to see some depth of thought here.
So what do you believe the responsibility of media practitioners are, considering the socializing role of media (whether desired or not....).
New Realism and the Death of Childhood
Some one once called television "the great secret exposing machine" and it was probably Neil Postman. In 1982, Neil Postman wrote a book called The Disappearance of Childhood. In the book, he pointed out how the distinguishing cultural characteristics of childhood were disappearing. Girls in their early teens were among the highest paid models. Fashion for girls was a miniaturization of adult styles. Little girls in commercials wore as much make up as their Barbie dolls or their mothers. The same was true for boys....(without the make up). Television depicted them as younger versions of adults. Postman was also concerned that the barriers of knowledge were breaking down as well. Kids were exposed to violent and sexual content that previously had been beyond their reach. Television, especially cable television, made content readily available to kids that had never been available in that way before on such a wide scale.
Well, if Postman was concerned in 1982, he's probably worried to death today...Just consider what's happened in the last 20 years...
The O.J. Simpson trial
The Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal
The Gulf War
The Jerry Springer Show
Increase in sex, nudity, and objectionable language on network television in all day parts
Shock Jocks on the radio (including Howard Stern) and coarsening of music lyrics
Shocking video in news broadcasts, showing bodies, forest fires, the horrors of war and natural disaster
What effects are these type media messages likely to have on children?
The easy answer is to say that parents should take the responsibility. Certainly that is true. Parents have the primary responsibility to guard what their children watch. But that answer does not remove the responsibility from the media practitioner:
Even parents who are at home cook dinner, go to the bathroom, empty the drier, etc. We don't keep our children (especially the older ones) chained to our hips
If you believe your child is watching a "safe" cartoon program at four p.m., how are you to know that the local affiliate is cutting to a live chase or shoot out or perhaps a freeway suicide before you can get in the next room -- or across the room you're in -- to change the channel?
Even if you remove all TV from your own home, your kids visit other homes, or at the very least, play with kids who have TV...
MTV has long been controversial. The Parents Television Council published the following in it newsletter of April 20, 2001.
"Teenage Girls Sue MTV
MTV apologized in early April to two teen-aged girls who were showered with excrement at a recent taping of a show called Dude, This Sucks. The girls, who were 13 at the time of the incident were, according to the Associated Press, "invited to stand near the stage during taping of the show and were given no warning that two men calling themselves the Shower Rangers would abruptly defecate on stage." The girls have since sued the music network for infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and battery.
Although the president of programming for MTV, Brian Graden, promised that the footage will never be aired, he could have gone further by admitting that such an atrocious act should never have been allowed to occur. We shouldn't be surprised, of course, given that Graden is the same man who informed Rolling Stone magazine that the series Jackass, which has featured host Johnny Knoxville being covered in human and dog feces, is "a natural fit for our brand." "
Courts and cameras....
In the mid 1990s, a good part of the nation's attention was focused on O.J. Simpson and his murder trial. Hours and hours of news stories, talk shows, pundit shows, and thousands of pages of print media covered the story. It was on of the top five stories of the year, but who among us would say that that trial or its outcome had any influence at all on our individual lives? So what is news? We will spend a lot of time talking about that issue in other classes, but it merits some concern here as we address the issue of publicity surrounding trials.
In order to understand this issue, you need to understand some of the key trials in the history of electronic and print media.
What is the history of cameras in the hearing or court room?
1. 1935: Brun Hauptman Trial: He was accused of kidnapping and killing the baby of Charles Lindberg. More than 800 reporters from around the world covered the trial and resulting circus atmosphere has lent concern and questions about the result. Middleton describes copy runners running in and out of the courtroom during the trial to get copy to newspapers and radio stations. Only a few cameras were allowed inside the courtroom, and photographers generally obeyed the rules..
But the trial became such a circus that it caused a hostility to cameras in the courtroom and in 1937 the American Bar Association adopted .
Canon 35 (in its professional code) which prohibited cameras in a courtroom because they detracted from the proceedings.
The 18 man committee reported to the Bar Association that Hauptman's trial had been "the most spectacular and depressing example of improper publicity and professional misconduct ever presented to the people of the United States in a criminal trial."
Hauptman was convicted and executed. He claimed to be innocent to the end.
2. McCarthy Hearings: It was television's coverage of these hearing that helped bring about the downfall of the McCarthy reign of terror. People could see him for what he was. Fred Friendly left CBS over the issue. (Remember he was Murrow's producer on "See It Now.") When Bill Paley decided to run an "I Love Lucy" rerun instead of covering the hearings, he could no longer take the tyranny of economy over ethics.
3. Marshall v. United States (1959): Supreme Court reversed a federal conviction of a drug dealer because the jurors had read in the newspaper about his previous two convictions.
4. Irvin v. Dowd (1961) : Supreme Court reversed an Indiana conviction for murder, and established a principle which would apply to all courts. --Verdicts reached y a jury which had been influenced by prejudicial publicity violated the the 6thAm. guarantee of trial by an impartial jury. Leslie Irvin was accused of murdering 6 people in Evansville, In., and showed so little remorse that he was compared to a "mad dog." (Mad Dog Irvin became his nick name). By the time he was tried, it was determined that practically everyone in Evansville had not only heard about the murder but decided he was guilty. The trial was moved to a nearby county, but again research revealed that jury had already made up its mind before the trial. They quickly found him guilty. The supreme court overturned the conviction. Irvin was later convicted in Central Indiana.
5. Rideau v. Louisiana (1963): Wilbert Rideau robbed a bank in Lake Charles and took three hostages, killing one before he was captured. After his capture the sheriff visited him in his jail cell and a news crew went along. During that visit Rideau confessed, and the film of that confession was broadcast all over the area. S. Court said his trial had therefore taken place in his cell and his own words had convicted him. Thus, the court said when there was pervasive exposure to such pretrial publicity, the trial could not be fair.
6. ESTES v. TEXAS (1965). Billie Sol Estes swindled a number of farmers out of millions of dollars. He had been on the cover of TIME magazine and had been the friend of two presidents. Texas and Colorado at that time were the only states which allowed cameras in the court room. The photographers operated behind a wall and beyond the sight of most participants, the court ruled that people could have had their behavior/opinions altered by the "little red light". Television was allowed to cover the pretrial hearings as well, and so the supreme court ruled that Estes did not get a fair trial. The court's majority opinion stated: "A defendant on trial for his life is entitled to his day in court, not in a stadium, or a city or a nationwide arena....(that)...will inevitably result in prejudice. Trial by television is, therefore, foreign to our system."
The New York Times described the situation in an article quoted in the decision on the case:
"A television motor van, big as an intercontinental bus, was parked outside the courthouse and the second-floor courtroom was a forest of equipment. Two television cameras have been set up inside the bar and four more marked cameras were aligned just outside the gates." The floor was strewn with cables and wires and photographers walked around the courtroom, even going behind the judge's bench to take pictures while the attorneys were speaking. (Teeter, 1995)
The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Tom C. Clark. He said the trial wasn't fair in this case, but he didn't think it meant that they NEVER allowed a fair trial. This left the door open...
7. Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966): According to Com Law Scholar Dwight Teeter, (p. 693)
"With perhaps the exception of the Lindberg kidnapping case of the 1930's, the ordeal of Dr.Sam Sheppard may well have been the most notorious case of Twentieth Century." (written before the OJ situation)
The Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction of Dr. Sam Sheppard, a prominent doctor accused of killing his wife. He had served 10 years in the Ohio State prison before the court agreed to hear his case. Sheppard had always claimed he was innocent of beating his wife to death, even though they had been having marital problems. He said he awoke to find a strange "form" standing over his wife's body and then the stranger fled. But no one else had seen the stranger he claimed had fled his home.
One headline: "Somebody is getting away with murder."
Another: "Why isn't Sam Sheppard in Jail?"
In the weeks before he went to trial, the papers and other news media were flooded with stories about his guilt. Some of it occurred as early as the date of Marilyn Sheppard's funeral.
Court assumed that a radio and television coverage was as extensive as the print coverage. There were debates about his guilt over radio station WHK. Assertions that Sheppard's mistress lived in NYC were made by Walter Winchell on his broadcast.
When jury was selected, their names and addresses were published in the newspaper. They received phone calls and letters trying to persuade them and influence them. So many press members wanted to cover the trial, the judge set up an additional press table INSIDE the bar! It was so close to the defense table, "Shepphard had to confer with his lawyers in a whisper to avoid being overheard." While TV cameras were not allowed in the court room during the trial, he recessed the court and allowed TV photogs to burst into the room and get the witnesses in a shot before they could get out of the witness chair. In addition, they were allowed to stake out the sidewalks and interview witnesses before and after the trial.
News media cited 'evidence" that was not allowed into the trial. They interviewed "witnesses" that were never called to testify. News reporters of great prominence reported that Sheppard was guilty, long before the trial was over. Right before Christmas of 1954, Sheppard was convicted. Since the IRVIN case would not be heard for years, his pleas before appellate courts and the Supreme Court were avail.
1964, after Rideau and Irvin, his family hired F. LEE BAILEY who persuaded a new court of appeals judge to release him on the grounds that his trial had been conducted in a "carnival atmosphere." The appeals court disagreed, but the Supreme Court agreed to his release.
The court criticized the judge in the case,:
"the fact is that bedlam reigned at the courthouse during the trial and newsmen took over practically the entire courtroom, hounding most of the participants in the trial, especially Sheppard.. [T]he judge lost his ability to supervise the environment. The movement of the reporters in and out of the courtroom caused frequent confusion and disruption of the trial."
Sam Sheppard was released and retried in 1966. Witnesses had died; people couldn't remember details...He was acquitted. He tried to resume his medical practice, but was sued for malpractice. He married, but that ended in divorce. He ultimately wound up as a professional wrestler, married to his promoter's 19 year old daughter. He died in 1970 of a liver disease.
In the Sheppard case, the court set down guidelines which could be followed to eliminate the problems of pretrial prejudice...
1. Judges should maintain stricter control over the courtroom and the premises around it.
2. Court should have insulated witnesses. Papers had interviewed all and disclosed their testimony...
3. Court should have made effort to control the release of all forms of information from witnesses, police, counselors, etc. Most of what came out what inaccurate.
4. Outside information about the trial could have been controlled if city officials had told their own employees to NOT release information!
5. If there is likelihood that pretrial publicity could prejudice a trial:
Florida conducted an experiment with television cameras in the courtroom in the mid-seventies. After a year-long experiment, studies showed that cameras had no significant impact on the participants of the trial. The state allowed cameras in after that.
Immediately after that decision to defendants (policemen accused of burglary) appealed their convictions due to the presence of cameras. The case, Chandler v. Florida went all the way to the Supreme Court which ruled that states had the right to allow cameras in courtrooms if they chose. The court cited technical changes since the ESTES trial and protections Florida has placed in its rules to protect defendants. A complete constitutional ban on cameras wasn't warranted. (See p. 375 Middleton) Florida didn't violate any constitutional rights, so the Supreme Court didn't have the right to intervene.
There are different regulations in different states, with some requiring the approval of the judge and parties involved. Alabama requires both. The federal courts still do not allow cameras in the court room.
As a result of the Sheppard Case and others, , courts have found remedies to the problems of cameras and news reporter in the courtroom:
The first 10 have been upheld so many times that they are taken for granted, and they mirror the suggestions made in Estes.
1. Postpone (continuance) the trial until the publicity dies down. ( 6 months is usually the limit )
2. Change of venue (common now)
3. Rigorous use of voir dire to screen prospective jurors who have made up their minds prior to the beginning of the trial
4. Restrictions on the number of reporters in the court room
5. Prevent photographers from being in the courtroom
6. Sequestration of the jury. (This is the last resort for most judges)
7. Admonition to the jury: (don't read, etc)
8. Change of venire : change the jury pool rather than location of the trial: Bus in a jury from another location; expensive, etc.
9. Severance: when two people are charged with the same crime and are given separate trials to prevent publicity surrounding one from effecting the justice meted out to the other.
10. New trial: if there's too much damage a conviction may be overturned and a new trial ordered.
The more controversial steps to protect the defendant are:
Some of these imply restraints on members of the court and members of the press. If your'e interested in more details on this matter, check out the Com 400 lecture at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~jmcmulle/400camcourt.htm
In the 1990s there were several cases which drew attention to the problem of trial publicity. Were defendants getting a fair trial? Were lawyers performing for cameras? Was the system compromised? The Supreme Court does not allow cameras to be present during its sessions, and it was an historic change when it allowed audio tapes to be released of the arguments made before it during the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election. Some recent cases to recall and consider include:
According to a TV Guide article on the impact and coverage of the case. "That the chief appeal of the Simpson case lay in its entertainment value may not be a very high-minded conclusion, but it seems inescapable in a time when entertainment has become the primary focus in American Life and especially in our media."
"The real sea change in American journalism over the last decade--and the one the Simpson coverage dramatically illustrated--has been the extent to which the story function of the news has eroded the information function. Where once the network evening news routinely reported items of national and international import and littel else, sorditd tales and feature stories now as often as not shoulder aside the hard news." (See TV GUIDE 7/30/94 p. 12)
Following the O.J. Simpson trial, cable network ratings dropped sharply, but were higher after the trial than they had been before it began. CNN had an O.J. Website; it had nearly 1 million visitors.
O.J. wanted an opportunity to tell his side of the story after the criminal trial. An interview was set up with NBC, but Simpson pulled out after he considered that his answers might prejudice the upcoming civil trial. He was offered a 90-minute interview with CNN's Larry King, but refused it. He approached Court TV, but they turned HIM down. None of th other networks owuld accept the pre-set conditions that Simpson wanted. See Broadcasting and Cable, 10/16/95 p. 8 for more details.
Simpson finally gave an interview, but the first interview in print was given to a New York Times reporter in a 45 minute telephone conversation. He was later interviewed on BET.
October 11, 1995 USA TODAY headline read, "REBUILDING O.J.'s Image: Simpson Trying to Fight off 'Aura of Guilt.'" The story proceeded to discuss how he was trying to reintegrate himself into society after his criminal acquittal. After the civil conviction, there's not much chance of that...
In a Special Report, TV GUIDE asked media professionals, "Did TV influence the O.J. Case?"
Peter Jennings, "I would be inclined to think the coverage did not affect the outcome..."
Harry Smith, CBS: "A major question is how the camera affected what the lawyers did everyday-let alone the judge's decision."
Jack Ford, NBC: "It's disingenuous for anybody to suggest TV had an impact on the verdict of this case."
Other significant situations:
More recent issues involve the use of on-line publications to release hot stories before they can go to "snail" press. The Dallas Morning News got into some trouble with a supposed confession by Timothy McVeigh. They later pulled the story.
Should local television stations air a mini-series based on a local murder, before the jury has even been picked in the murder trial? An NBC affiliate in Fort Worth, Texas said, "yes" concerning the airing of "The Triangle Murders" in 1997. After they won their position in court, they pre-screened the program and elected not to show it.
Should the news media release the sordid details of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal? Parents all over the country were having explanatory discussions with children that they would have preferred to postpone until the kids were a lot older. Brill's did a number of stories on the coverage of the Clinton scandal, and some of those are cited in earlier lectures. Check the Brill's archive if you're interested.
Court TV and Judge Judy
Court TV was founded in the mid 1990s and was propelled into popularity by many of the trials mentioned above. Founded by Steven Brill, the cable channel is now working to encourage kids to stay away from violence. See the "Your Turn" page at http://www.courttv.com/choices/yourturn/kansas/index.html . It's part of their Choices and Consequences program, which I find to be really interesting. Check it out. Media people can do some very pro-social things, and I think this is one of them.
Note that Steven Brill is the editor and founder of Brill's Content.
Never the less, the attention focused on these trials may be having some effect on the judicial process. There is a concern that while people may indeed learn more about the judicial process (as they did during the O.J. trial), the process is trivialized because it is becomes entertainment.
Another concern in legal circles are the bevy of Judge So-And-So shows in syndication on television. Judge Judy was one of the first to really become successful, but she was predated by Judge Wopner of The People's Court. A recent article on Law.com approached the issue. "TV Judges Worrying Judicial Watchdog Agency" reported that the California Commission on Judicial Performance, the body that monitors the performance of judges in the state, is increasingly concerned about the behavior of television judges. According to the article written for The Recorder by Gail Diane Cox, the commission gets letters on a regular basis from people complaining about the way the TV judges treat the people on the shows. Some people even complain because the judges before whom they appeared in a regular court didn't behave the way the TV judges did. Mike Farrell (yes, the actor who appeared in M*A*S*H* and now in Providence) serves on the eleven member commission as a lay-member with judges and lawyers, was quoted in the article:
"The purpose of our work is to protect the public from exactly the kind of thoughtless, mean-spirited and destructive behavior that pours forth from the 'courtrooms' of our television screens every day...As standards for judicial conduct are set by impostors accountable to no one, their immature antics tarnish the reputation of dedicated public servants."
Former real judges who are now on TV claim they have always been "outspoken." Judge Judy, Judith Sheindlin, says she first some of the lines for which she is noted in her real courtroom years before. David Danielsen, Chairman of the California Judges Association says "Judge Judy is a disgrace. But what are you going to do?" (Cox, 6/8/2000)
What are the ethical issues involved in this issue?
Pre-Trial Publicity & TESTIMONY ON TV: A TIMELINE
(partially provided from TV GUIDE 7/30/94 p. 14)
1953: Cameras allowed in Oklahoma Courtroom
1954: Political testimony in Army-McCarthy Hearings. Nation is riveted to the tube for the first of its kind broadcast.
1954: Sam Sheppard is tried for the murder of his wife in Cleveland, Ohio amidst chaos of press and photographers.
1955: First live broadcast of a trial takes place in Waco, Texas
1957: Senates McClellan committee hearings concerning Bobby Kennedy's accusations of corruption against Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamster's Union.
1959: Marshall v. United States. Case overturned because of pre-trial publicity due to jurors reading newspapers. FEDERAL case.
1961: Irvin v. Dowd: Conviction overturned because of excessive newspaper publicity. STATE CASE. (Evansville, Indiana)
1963: Rideau v. Lousiana : Televised confession caused court to overturn conviction.
1962: Estes v, Texas: Swindler Billy Sol Estes was tried and convicted in a courtroom full of reporters and cameras in Texas. The conviction was overturned by Supreme Court in 1965.
1966: Supreme Court reverses Sheppard's conviction. Retried and acquitted.
1973-4: On-going coverage of Watergate Hearings.
1979: Ted Bundy's trial is covered extensively.
1981: Chandler v. Florida. Supreme Court says Florida did not violate the Constitution by allowing cameras in courtrooms.
1982: Clause von Bulow's first TV Trial ends in conviction. His retrial is carried by CNN in 1985 and he is acquitted.
1984: CNN carries live the gang-rape trial on which the movie "The Accused" was based.
1987: Televised coverage of Judge Bork's confirmation hearings. Live coverage also of the Iran Contra hearings
1991: Gavel-to-gavel coverage of Pamela Smart's trial. She was accused of having her student murder her husband. Court TV covers hearing of Christian Chapman. Live coverage of Confirmation Hearings of Judge Clarence Thomas. Censored coverage at the William Kennedy rape trial.
1992: Riots follow the TV trial of police officers who beat Rodney King. TV coverage pre-trial hearings and sentencing of Amy Fisher. TV coverage of pretrial hearing of serial killer/cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer
1993: TV coverage of trial of Reginald Denny's accused attackers. Riots follow. Mendez brothers trial. Arraignment of Heidi Fleiss (Hollywood madam)
1994: Lorena Bobbit trial. O.J.'s pre-trial hearings.....
1995: O.J.'s trial.
1999: Clinton impeachment trial
2000: Timothy McVeigh trial
Popular Culture
Stereotypes:
The final chapter in your book addresses the issue of stereotypes. It's a good chapter, and I want you to carefully consider the issues there.
In the summer of 2000, all of the major networks signed agreements with various minority groups promising to increase the number of minorities present in the their television programming. The minority groups argued that African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics and others were not represented in television programming. The network representatives "hummed and hawed" about it, denying any purposeful attempt to limit minority representation. As a show of good faith, and because they didn't want any more bad publicity, they signed written agreements promising to do better. In November, 2000, that multiethnic coalition reviewed the networks' performance, and to quote Broadcasting and Cable, "No one got a high marks."
The head of the NAACP called for another boycott of the networks in January of 2001, claiming the networks had reneged on their promise. He warned that the NAACP will boycott one of the top four networks in the very near future. He would even like legislation to help minority and independent producers get their programs on the air. Read the article at http://www.tvinsite.com/broadcastingcable/index.asp?layout=story&articleId=CA61216&stt=001&display=searchResults
Racial stereotypes are not the only ones. Consider the following:
regional stereotypes (i.e. Southern stereotypes)
religious stereotypes
age stereotypes
gender stereotypes
What other types of stereotypes can you identify? List some below
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
Of course one of the best illustrations of stereotyping in media is Michael Medved's Hollywood vs. America. The book is on the reading list, and we saw the video with Michael Medved, Hollywood vs. Religion in class. In the video he demonstrates how religious people, particular Jews and Christians, have been portrayed as disturbed, violent, and irrational, as well as immoral, hypocrites who are outright dangerous. While other religions, even witchcraft, are presented in a positive way, a semiotic analysis of the movies of the last 30 years demonstrates that Christians and Jews are presented in an overwhelmingly negative way. In his book, Medved addresses other cultural groups and values which are treated with hostility: sexual purity, marriage, legitimacy, parents, businesspeople, educators, and even patriotism. Those things which are elevated by attention, repetition or prominence are foul language, promiscuity, teenagers, rebellion, and anything that is bizzare, ugly, or breaks with tradition. While 9/11 has tempered the treatment of patriotism in the last few months, many of the other treatments have remained stable.
One area in which you all should be very sensitive concerns regional stereotyping. Millions of people in this country and abroad believe that anyone who has a southern accent is stupid, backward and jumps creeks with a muddy pick-up truck! That bias affects you directly when you apply for a job outside of Alabama... It may not be fair, it may not involve everyone, but it is a reality and it is based in decades of portrayals of southerners as slow, stupid and culturally inept.
Focus on the Superficial
We could spend a lot of time considering the nature of popular culture, but it's the end of the semester and we're all tired. (Actually it's 10 p.m. as I write this and I've been at school since before 8:00 a.m.) So let's sum this up quickly.
Popular culture tends to emphasize the things that are NOT important and DEemphasize the things that ARE.
I want you to think about that, and the following questions:
Has it always been that way? (...that popular culture doesn't focus on what is important in a society)
What are some examples of that? In entertainment? in news? in education?
How is popular culture a reflection of world view?
How is popular culture a reflection of technology?
Since everything has consequences, what kinds of consequences do you see as a result of media choices today?
In light of all of that, what is your responsibility? Why
Resources:
Copyright, 2001
Janet McMullen, Ph.D.