Soccer Dad

A repressive regime

Last week the Baltimore Sun reported, "Sun backed in lawsuit challenging Ehrlich ban":

A coalition of the nation's leading news organizations filed a legal brief yesterday supporting The Sun in its lawsuit against Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., contending that the governor's ban on two Sun journalists was an act "characteristic of repressive regimes."
The 27-page amicus brief was filed in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., by lawyers representing the New York Times Co., The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Time Inc., CNN, the E.W. Scripps Co. and Advance Publications Inc.
An array of news professional associations also joined the brief.

WCBM talk show host Tom Marr has asked how the Sun could reasonably be expected to cover the governor fairly if it is a party to a contentious lawsuit with the governor. Now the question is stronger, if the supporting brief considers the Ehrlich administration on a par with a repressive regime how can the Washington Post (one of the parties to the amicus brief) be expected to cover Governor Ehrlich fairly? (If the Sun hasn't objected to the hyperbolic characterization, then this latter question applies to it too.)
The judge who threw out the suit against the Ehrlich administration was correct and these appeals should be rejected too. And not just for the hyperbole.
Here's more of the brief:

"The First Amendment is designed to protect the press and the public against governmental attempts to restrict speech disapproved of by those in power," the brief said. "Yet the Governor's order, by his own admission, seeks to do precisely that: he seeks to coerce journalists into providing coverage that is pleasing to him on pain of being subject to an official boycott if they do not."

The Washington Post has been no softer on Ehrlich than has the Baltimore Sun, (arguably it's been even tougher) yet Ehrlich didn't take any action against the Post. So clearly Ehrlich's intent isn't to stifle negative coverage. In the case of the barred reporter and columnist, each had an article to which there was an inaccuracy attached. Ehrlich demanded that the paper take action and was unsatisfied by the Sun's response.
And if you think the Washington Post is the least bit intimidated by Governor Ehrlich here's an excerpt from a recent editorial:

Rather than suffer the impudent professional doubters who populate newspaper staffs, Mr. Ehrlich has tried to disseminate his message directly, through submissive talk radio programs.

And in the past month no order has been issued by the governor's office forbidding state agencies from talking to anyone from the Washington Post.
The next part of the brief is interesting from a different standpoint:

Ehrlich's ban harms not only The Sun - in its ability to assign reporters of its choosing to the State House - but also other news organizations, the brief said. "In short, the retaliation against The Sun's reporter and columnist has an undeniable chilling effect on all those who report on the affairs of Maryland state government," the brief said.

Well recently a couple of reporters were barred from reporting on Maryland state issues. Terrible isn't it? Guess who was responsible for barring these reporters from doing their job? Well it was the Baltimore Sun. Two reporters gave the Ehrlich's baby gifts. Here's the consequence:

Editorial Page Editor Dianne Donovan, Ms. Hosler's supervisor, had known previously about the friendship between Ms. Hosler and her husband and the Ehrlichs. After Mr. Ehrlich was elected, Ms. Donovan and Ms. Hosler agreed that Ms. Hosler would not write editorials about the governor or state politics. Following Mr. Nitkin's baby gift story, Ms. Donovan ruled that Ms. Hosler would not write anything at all regarding Maryland politics or policies. This means Ms. Hosler cannot cover two of her specialties, environment and health issues. "We simply can't give the impression of the expectation of favored treatment," Ms. Donovan said.

(The original article is no longer available online. I had included the quote in a previous entry.) The paper can't give the impression of favored treatment; though apparently hostile treatment - at least as corrupting as favored treatment - is OK. Nice to know that the Sun is consistent.
What's particularly disturbing is that the Sun acknowledged that its coverage of state issues would suffer because Karen Hosler won't be able to cover two of her specialties.
In short the brief filed on behalf of the Sun betrays both the arrogance and inconsistency of the media. Governor Ehrlich's actions were calculated to encourage the print media to act more responsibly. Instead the media outlets are fighting making unsubstantiated and contradictory claims of the effect the Governor's ban will have on the "peoples' right to know." None of this is very convincing from a legal standpoint. It is, however, quite convincing of the print media's arrogance.

Posted by SoccerDad at June 3, 2005 02:45 PM | TrackBack