Twitter Facebook Google Plus Pinterest Storify
Society of Professional Journalists
Improving and protecting journalism since 1909

Advertise with SPJ

News and More
Click to Expand Instantly

SPJ News
Events and Deadlines
SPJ Blogs
Quill Online
Journalist's Toolbox

Stay in Touch
Twitter Storify Facebook Google Plus
RSS Pinterest Pinterest Flickr

More Articles
Main listing | Archive

News: SPJ joins amicus brief in New Jersey public records case
News: SPJ joins amicus brief in Texas biker shootout case
News: SPJ joins letter in 'right to be forgotten' internet order
News: SPJ joins amicus brief in NYPD public records case
Quill: From the President
Quill: Ten with Fiona Macleod

Freedom of Information
Covering Prisons
Project Sunshine: Find FOI Help
Accessing Government Records
Shield Law Campaign
FOI Audit Tookit | PDF
Anti-SLAPP: Protect Free Speech
Official Secrets Act bill
FOI Groups
Annual FOI Reports
FOI Committee Roster

FOI FYI: SPJ’s FOI Committee Blog
Show why FOI matters
FOI Win in Georgia: Defamation Law Repealed
The flow of information: Reporting on water in the west

FOI Committee
This committee is the watchdog of press freedoms across the nation. It relies upon a network of volunteers in each state organized under Project Sunshine. These SPJ members are on the front lines for assaults to the First Amendment and when lawmakers attempt to restrict the public's access to documents and the government's business. The committee often is called upon to intervene in instances where the media is restricted.

Freedom of Information Committee Chair

Jonathan Anderson
Public issues investigative reporter
Marshfield News-Herald
Marshfield, Wisc.
Phone: 920-676-5399
Bio (click to expand) picture Jonathan Anderson is a public issues investigative reporter for the Marshfield News-Herald in Marshfield, Wisconsin. Before joining the News-Herald, in 2015, Jonathan was a reporter for a pair of newspapers in northern Wisconsin for nearly two years. He has held internships at the First Amendment Center, Wisconsin Law Journal, Wisconsin Public Radio and WISN-TV, and was also editor in chief of his college newspaper, the UWM Post.

Jonathan is an avid requester of public records, and his work in the FOI arena has also entailed advocacy and research. He has been the plaintiff in two lawsuits challenging improper government secrecy. He helped obtain a legal opinion from the Wisconsin attorney general that found University of Wisconsin System student government groups subject to the state’s open meetings law. His master’s thesis, “Resolving Public Records Disputes in Wisconsin: The Role of the Attorney General's Office,” investigated how the Wisconsin attorney general reviews and sometimes intervenes in access disputes. And he has volunteered for the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.

Reading Room
Freedom of Information
First Amendment/
Public & the Press

Articles for...
Young Journalists
International Journalists

Home > Freedom of Information > Reading Room > Maryland ruling strikes at heart of press freedom

SPJ Reading Room


Maryland ruling strikes at heart of press freedom

By Charles Davis

Government officials, the flacks who curry favor with them by misshaping the events of the day and out-and-out propagandists are enjoying an unprecedented boom market these days, as the citizenry watches, entertained if misinformed.

At every level of government, it seems, journalism is losing ground to news control.

In Maryland, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed The Baltimore Sun a stinging defeat in its lawsuit against Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. that challenged his ban on talking with two Sun reporters.

As the Sun dutifully reported, the judges affirmed a lower court decision that rejected the newspaper’s claim that the reporters’ First Amendment rights had been violated by the order, issued Nov. 18, 2004, banning state executive branch employees from speaking with Sun reporter David Nitkin and columnist Michael Olesker, who has since left the paper.

Timothy Franklin, editor of the Sun, said the paper would not appeal the decision.

The judges said the reporters “have not been chilled to any substantial degree in their reporting, as they have continued to write stories for the Sun, to comment, to criticize, and otherwise to speak with the full protection of the First Amendment.”

Following that logic, so long as the Sun reporters are not utterly silenced from writing about, say, the Ravens or the DMV or the weather or any topic that doesn’t involve the state’s chief executive — all is well.

All is not well.

Upholding the legality of a policy so clearly designed to punish critics — including a columnist, whose role, last I checked, is to provide opinion — brings legal gravitas to any public official in Maryland bent on creating an official “enemies list” of disfavored journalists, on behalf of whatever half-cooked rationale the flackery can concoct.

Think I’m overstating things? Take a look at Ehrlich’s response to his legal victory:

Ehrlich said the ruling “goes to the heart of this issue — the responsibility of every member of the press to report in a fair and objective manner, and the right to hold accountable those journalists who fail to adhere to these basic tenets of journalistic integrity.”

In other words, we decide, you report, and if we don’t like the results — you’re outtahere!

In fact, the ruling never addressed the issue of objective reporting, for the First Amendment would have made that a no-go, but it didn’t really have to, did it?

The practical effects of the ruling are bad enough, for here stands an official government policy of media exclusion based on content, upheld by a federal court. Whether the reporters can continue to report on anything not involving access to the governor is little solace, if the state’s chief executive can so cavalierly retaliate through use of legal force to punish his critics.

The court’s myopic focus on the external “chilling effects” of the policy ignores its more sinister side: providing the executive branch of government with the first-ever legal battering ram to bash its critics within a completely discriminatory manner, picking and choosing who gets to provide information to the people.

The marriage of news control — long sought by politicians everywhere — and the long arm of the law is what is new here. Ehrlich could have refused to return a call, and many an elected official has failed to hear the phone ring. But to give such behavior legal sanction is a whole other matter.

That the First Amendment long has forbidden precisely this sort of discrimination was lost on the court. But it won’t be lost on the spinmeisters, who must be salivating at the prospect of similar bans in the future. While the ruling is limited in scope to the 4th Circuit, its ramifications are likely to be felt in far-flung corners of the country, anywhere a churlish politico wishes to control the press.

Rarely are news controls as blatant as the Maryland saga. More typical is the sort of hyperactive public affairs officer currently making headlines at NASA, where daily attempts to curtail scientific openness have career scientists crying foul.

SPJ must remain vigilant in fighting any and all attempts at discriminatory media access policies. Only by fighting each such attempt, as vigorously as the Baltimore Sun fought this one, will we beat back controls on the news.

Charles Davis, co-chairman of SPJ’s Freedom of Information Committee, is the executive director of the Freedom of Information Center at University of Missouri School of Journalism.
Copyright © 1996-2015 Society of Professional Journalists. All Rights Reserved. Legal

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center
3909 N. Meridian St.
Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789

Contact SPJ Headquarters
Employment Opportunities
Advertise with SPJ