Growing up as a military brat, we were allowed to access base services, sort of a perk for the family of an Air Force servicemember.
However, if we abuse those privileges, we lost them, and it could even lead to consequences for my dad (doubly so, since he was a member of the Security Police). We understood that, at least most of us did, and didn’t throw a fit when it happened.
(I’m not telling any stories, and you can’t make me.)
The telling word here is privilege, which in this day and age has been confused with rights, and is the basis of the issue behind the President banning certain news organizations.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico were shown the door as far as access to the White House, because Trump claims they violated the First Amendment through blatant one-sidedness in their news coverage. Former Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has claimed in interviews that reporters have been told what to ask and how to ask it in a way to shine the administration in the worst light.
A federal judge, because of course, has ordered Trump to reinstate those organization’s privileges, claiming that there wasn’t enough due process in making the decision.
I have been a vocal and ardent supporter of the First Amendment for more than 40 years. I see it as sacrosanct, which it should be, because any form of government that purports to dictate what information is disseminated should not exist, and if this is truly a government by, of and for the people, that trite saying of “the people have a right to know” rings true.
But just because you call yourself a member of the Fourth Estate, and even if your heart is set on telling the truth, it does not mean, and will never mean, that you can do what you want where you want whenever you want. Because even armored with the right of a free press, it does not grant free and unfettered access. There are limits.
For instance, in Texas, names of minors are not considered public record. Other items unavailable to journalists include military operations, items that would be a violation of the Privacy Act, and hospital records. (Still, if a news organization were to come into possession of those items without breaking any laws, it would be fair game to disseminate. I refer to the Pentagon Papers as an example.)
Additionally, just because you’re a member of a press corps does not mean that everyone must respond to your questions. No comment, while an agreement between the writer and a source, is a valid response. Sure, just like pleading the Fifth Amendment makes someone seem guilty, a no comment comment will make someone seem like there’s something to hide. But still, the right to a free press doesn’t grant the privilege of a response or of unfettered access. That is earned by being trustworthy and above board with whatever you’re disseminating.
There is, of course, the other side to that coin. Elected officials cannot control what is news, how it’s put out or whether it’s being done with an agenda in mind. Even if an official doesn’t want to comment, information cannot be blocked; Freedom of Information Acts exist for that purpose. In the case of the banned organizations, it could still do their work, it would be just a little more difficult.
I don’t plan on dwelling on the whataboutism that inevitably surrounds these kerfuffles. Yes, most contemporary presidents are guilty one way or another in hampering journalistic efforts. I will say that regardless of your feeling about “fake” news and “fake” news organizations, the information must flow. I will continue to gripe about my “colleagues” who give the entire news society a metaphorical black eye because of their questioning in bad faith.
Since there cannot be laws written to limit the Fourth Estate’s efforts, it behooves us journalists to be above board in all our dealings. That way, access to information won’t be made more difficult, and the people’s right to know will be honored fully.
Tony Farkas is editor of the Trinity County News-Standard and the San Jacinto News-Times. He can be reached at tony@polkcountypublishing.com.
