Access: Can the White House kick the NYT to the curb?
posted at 4:16 pm on July 5, 2006 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Since the NYT disclosed the classified terrorist finance-tracking SWIFT program we’ve all been debating what the White House should do about it. Should it punish the leakers (assuming it can find them and that they’re within legal reach), or should it also go after the NYT editors and reporters involved in the story? Should it revoke the Times’ press credentials to the White House itself and/or order its staff and members of the executive branch not to speak to Times reporters at all? Would it be legal for the WH to do any of that?
Believe it or not, the issue of limiting a newspaper’s access to elected politicians has been adjudicated in the past two years.
On November 18, 2004, Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich ordered his staff not to talk to two Baltimore Sun reporters, David Nitkin and Michael Olesker, on the grounds that they were biased against Ehrlich and did not report fairly. The Sun sued on First Amendment grounds:
The Sun’s lawsuit said that the governor’s directive, issued on Nov. 18, 2004, discourages “speech by any citizen of Maryland who disagrees with the Governor, and it will leave the door open for any public official to punish any individual who says something the government does not like.”
Journalists do not have a greater First Amendment right than private citizens to access government information, a federal judge ruled today in dismissing a lawsuit against Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich for freezing out a Baltimore Sun reporter and columnist.
Ehrlich did nothing illegal Nov. 18 when his press office ordered state public information officers and executive branch officials “not to return calls or comply with any requests” from Statehouse Bureau Chief David Nitkin or columnist Michael Olesker, who both write about state government, Judge William D. Quarles ruled.
“The right to publish news is expansive. However, the right does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information,” Quarles wrote in an eight-page ruling which rejected the contention of the Sun’s Dec. 3 lawsuit that Ehrlich’s ban violated the First Amendment. The Sun sought what Quarles called “privileged status beyond that of the private citizen.”
“Because . . . the Sun seeks the declaration of a constitutional right that neither the Supreme Court nor the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the] Fourth Circuit has recognized — and, in fact, seeks more access than that accorded a private citizen — the Governor’s motion to dismiss will be granted,” Quarles wrote.
So the White House probably could revoke the Times’ credentials allowing its reporters into the daily briefings, and it could theoretically forbid anyone in the executive branch from talking to any Times personnel at all. This won’t stop leaks from people who are already violating their non-disclosure agreements and won’t stop leaks coming from Congress. But it would at least put the Times on notice that it can’t expect to keep on publishing classified war-related secrets and maintain all of its access to the administration.
Imho, prosecution is still in order whether the White House revokes credentials and freezes out reporters or not.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I’d love to see the WH do just that, revoke the NYTimes credentials, but W. seems to be afraid of punishing his political enemies no matter what they do to him. It’s all the more inexcusable here since the NYTimes isn’t just an enemy of W., but are rather an enemy of the whole country (or at least those that actually would like us to win the war against Islamofacists).
thirteen28 on July 5, 2006 at 4:23 PM
I suggest we start an email campaign. If dubya gets a few thousand letters telling him that not only do we want him to do it but that it’s legal AND that it would get him lots of free publicity (and lots of easy points with his base) he might actually consider listening.
/wakes up
Oh sorry I was dreaming that we had Cheney as the president. My bad.
RH
RobertHuntingdon on July 5, 2006 at 4:34 PM
Its also true that the Press cannot be constrained from printing a story, BUT, can be held accountable after the fact.
They knowingly printed classified material… now, you really can’t go after the paper, BUT you can go after the reporters and editors as individuals… they have no more protections or rights than any other citizen…
Prosecute for espianage and conspiricy.
Romeo13 on July 5, 2006 at 4:45 PM
If they don’t ban the Times, at least freeze ‘em out by not recognizing them. Don’t answer their questions. Make fun of their reportering. Call them the NY Slimes or the Mimes, since they have nothing to say that we want to hear. Criticize them while they’re in the room and don’t give them the opportunity to respond.
If they’re called on it by other reporters, just say, “They don’t like us; we don’t like them. If they want to show up anyway, that’s their call. We don’t have to treat them any better than they treat us.”
Skyfrog on July 5, 2006 at 5:19 PM
Been advocating throwing them out since the story broke. Other reporters don’t like it, they can leave as well. First Amendment does not give access privileges to any one given unit of the press.
Mike O on July 5, 2006 at 5:30 PM
Bush thinks he can go out of his way to play nice with these weasels and they will somehow change their opinion about him. He would have an easier time bringing bin Laden to his side.
He doesn’t realize that he has enticed the traitors to push the envelope. They will do as much damage as they think they can get away with.
The public perception of the simpleton masses is that the actions of the traitors must be okay since there was no reaction to it. In fact, actions are perceived to be acceptable in direct relation to the response to the action. Younger people might not know what Watergate was all about but they know there was a strong response to it so they perceive that something very awful occurred.
Treason has become acceptable, it has gone mainstream.
Perchant on July 6, 2006 at 12:14 AM
The White House, under Bush, has historically ignored the liberal press in the past and let them talk themselves into a corner. It worked quite well.
While I certainly am no fan of the traitorous, Bush bashing, troop condemning MSM, and am also no longer a Bush syncophant, I am forced to believe that maybe they do know what they are doing over there. Time will tell. :o)
DannoJyd on July 6, 2006 at 12:58 AM
Perhaps the administration is waiting until after the election before proceeding against the Times to avoid the inevitable press retaliation against the Party if he proceeds now. I’m hoping that an investigation against the leakers is in progress, now, and that indictments will follow.
If the Republicans can retain control of both Houses after the election, then the administration could ban the NY and LA Times from the White House, Pentagon, and make them persona-non-grata in Baghdad and Kabul. Then Justice could move against Lichtblau, Rissen, Keller, and Sulzberger as individuals.
In the mean time, and may God forgive me for it, I’ll continue to hope that the above 4 die in a car accident or something.
georgej on July 6, 2006 at 6:53 AM
Comment pages: