Blogger questions Oregon's media executive session exception
A blogger in Oregon is questioning a state law that allows "representatives of the news media" and no other citizens to sit in on executive sessions. An author of a political blog wanted to sit in on the Lake Oswego City Council's executive session but was told he couldn't, according to a story in The Oregonian. Now the city is trying to come up with a policy for defining news media that would be allowed in executive sessions. One possibility is allowing journalists from "well-established" organizations producing at least 25 percent news content. Yuck!
This is one of the quirkiest open meeting law provisions in the country, having experienced it first-hand. As a cub City Hall reporter for The Columbian in Vancouver, Wash. (outside of Portland, Ore.) I had the opportunity to be told to scram when a Washington state governing body wanted to meet in executive session, but when covering meetings in Oregon I was allowed to sit in the sessions as long as I did not report what was said. It's a great gig for journalists in Oregon because they can make sure public bodies are meeting in secret for good reason.
But this blogger issue raises the big ugly underlying dangers of this special media exception: providing journalists special rights over citizens and forcing the government to define journalist. Gads, this opens up a can of worms that we are struggling with at the national level regarding the definition of a journalist for the federal shield law. I tend to agree with Charles Davis, director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, who said that it's tricky when you give journalists special rights over citizens. That makes me nervous. I also know that the quirky Oregon executive session provision works, and keeps government a little more open and honest than what I experienced as a reporter in other states.
So Oregon (and the rest of us when it comes to the federal shield law) are left with two choices: Drop the special treatment or come up with a workable definition. I hate the idea of special treatment - there are so many problems with that. Yet, I think from a practical perspective, if we don't provide some protections for journalists then I think our Democratic society is toast, especially given what's happened the past eight years. I think we can come up with some workable definition. I like, for example, the definition included in the new Hawaii state shield law that a journalist is anyone who: "has regularly and materially participated in the reporting or publishing of news or information of substantial public interest for the purpose of dissemination to the general public by the means of tangible or electronic media." That really starts to get at what journalism is all about. It's not about printing an ads-only shopper or spouting off once in a fleeting blog. It's about helping citizens better understand their communities and holding government accountable, consistently, in print, the airwaves and online. Journalism matters.
But I feel for those folks trying to come up with a definition. Given we're talking about Oregon here, maybe they'll come up with the definition, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck."