Soccer Dad

The guardians of our information have a bad week

It did not start of well for the media this week. Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot a hunting buddy and didn't have decency to inform the self-important Washington press corps promptly.

The Washington Post disapproved

What makes little sense, however, was the White House's decision, according to press secretary Scott McClellan, to defer disclosure of the shooting incident to the vice president's office, and that office's decision to further defer to the owners of the ranch. Mr. Cheney did not check his official title at the Armstrongs' front gate. That was no private citizen who pulled the trigger, sending someone to the hospital. That act, though accidental -- and doubtless both agonizing and embarrassing -- was committed by the country's second-highest public official. Neither Mr. Cheney nor the White House gets to pick and choose when to disclose a shooting. Saturday's incident required immediate public disclosure -- a fact so elementary that the failure to act properly is truly disturbing in its implications.

The Vice President did not, as it turns out, defer to Mrs. Armstrong. Vice President Cheney and she agreed that she would be the best person to break the news. And she called her local paper. The only thing that's disturbing to me is the presumption that somehow making the information about the shooting available to a local paper was an insult to the high and mighty press lords in Washington. The NRO Media Blog runs a quote from former Senator Alan Simpson that seems rather appropriate

...any time Dick Cheney makes a fluff, it’s going to be the news of the day. I have been called by 20 different news agency today as if they had bombed Iraq again. I mean, this is nuts, absolutely nuts.

Or as Charles Krauthammer concludes in Quelle Quailgate

Secrecy? This was hardly an affair of state. And it was hardly going to be kept secret. Arrogance? The media laying these charges are the same media that just last week unilaterally decided that the public's right to know did not extend to seeing cartoons that had aroused half the world, burned a small part of it and deeply affected the American national interest. Having arrogated to themselves the judgment of what a free people should be allowed to see regarding an issue that is literally burning, they then go ballistic over a few hours' delay in revealing an accident with only the most trivial connection to the nation's interest or purpose.

Cheney got a judgment call wrong, for reasons that are entirely comprehensible. The disproportionate, at times hysterical, response to that error is far less comprehensible.

But perhaps the more significant blow to the egos of the media this week was the dismissal of the suit brought against Governor Bob Ehrlich of Maryland by the Baltimore Sun. In 2004, in response to two articles which contained errors, Gov. Ehrlich banned members of his government from talking to political reporter David Nitkin and columnist Michael Olesker.

The suit that was joined by a number of other newspapers and press organizations was just dismissed by a federal appeals court

We, however, find the scenario conceded by The Sun and the facts of this case to be materially indistinguishable. Both the hypothetical and this case are merely two different ways of describing the same
pervasive and everyday relationship between government officials and the press, and retaliation liability cannot hinge on the conclusory statements with which a plaintiff frames a complaint about a single example of how that relationship has played out. Both the hypothetical and the facts of this case present instances in which government officials disadvantage some reporters because of their reporting and simultaneously advantage others by granting them unequal access to nonpublic information. Thus, whether the disfavored reporters number two or two million, they are still denied access to discretionarily afforded information on account of their reporting. The facts of this case and the hypothetical stand or fall together, so The Sun’s concession
forecloses its requested relief.

In other words, government officials regularly favor some reporters over others without there being a "chilling effect" on the freedom of the press. By limiting the access of two reporters to certain state officials, Gov. Ehrlich didn't exit the bounds of the normal interaction between the government and the media. Good for the court.

But the Sun shouldn't get off so easy. For the past 15 months or so it has been involved in an adversarial lawsuits with the Governor, yet it didn't stop reporting or commenting (usually disapprovingly) on his actions. Shouldn't they have recused themselves from covering the governor while the suits were pending? Imagine how the Sun would have reacted if a judge suing a paper for libel was judging a case involving that paper?

The Washington Post also has this problem, though to a lesser degree. In a supporting brief the Post (and other organizations) argued

This kind of official control of the press is characteristic of repressive regimes, but it is alien to nations founded on principles of free speech and free press. It is abhorrent to our Constitution and should be repudiated by this Court.

"Repressive regimes?" Did Governor Ehrlich throw Olesker and Nitkin into jail because he disapproved of their writing? This rhetorical overreach should raise a concern as to whether the Post is objective in covering the governor.

Overall both the reaction to the VP's snub and the Sun's decision to sue Governor Ehrlich reveal the self-importance with which the media regards themselves. They don't just want to report the news, they want to be the arbiters of how the news is understood by the public. They wish to be the gatekeepers determining what is and isn't proper for the public to know.

This week in two separate circumstances the media were put in their place.

The Sun has maintained an archive of all relevant articles on the case.

PostScript: There's been a "mixed decision" for Governor Ehrlich. A few months ago Michael Olesker left the paper when it was discovered he was using material without attribution. David Nitkin, though, has been promoted to political editor.

UPDATE: The Sun insists

The integrity of journalists was never in question, and not a syllable of the decision criticizes the Sun's handling of news or commentary now or ever. The court's opinion does not endorse Mr. Ehrlich's brand of pettiness; it simply rejects any court-ordered intervention.

The court did not find the Ehrlich's behavior was "petty." TheWashington Post is no less vigorous in its criticisms of the Ehrlich administration than the Sun is. But Ehrlich never found a reason to cut off contact with Matthew Mosk. The Sun made mistakes and refused to own up to them. Gov Ehrlich took action that the court now finds to be constitutional.

UPDATE II: Newest member of the Maryland Bloggers Alliance, Maryland Conservatarian weighs in with The Sun goes down.

Technorati Tags: Baltimore Sun, Bob Ehrlich, David Nitkin, Michael Olesker, freedom of the press.

Posted by SoccerDad at February 17, 2006 4:39 AM