by Effie Moore Salem

Created on: July 31, 2009   Last Updated: August 02, 2009

Open records laws should not be taken advantage of, but capable journalists should be allowed to read the records of events that are not otherwise public property. They should be allowed to do this if their purpose of using the information is for the benefit of society as a whole. No sensationalism, no finger pointing, no using the information for political gains and other modifications on usage should be reasons for allowing usage. If the alleged purpose would serve no public good, then the records should remain hidden from public view.

The open records laws are different for every state. Therefore don't assume that what you can do in one, you can do in another. Read the Open Government Guide to learn how each state differs in what they will allow citizens to read. The reason you should learn how each stated differs in their laws and in what information they allow the public to view is for reforms. Perhaps you are writing about stifling laws in one state that clearly is being unfair to journalists and to citizens and you have been assigned by your local paper to learn how these differ from other states.

No reputable journalist would want to uncover information that would put their country at risk or give out valuable information that could some time later on be used against their community, their state or their country. So, with that thought in mind, use your conscience as to whether you think letting the public in on state secrets you learn is a good thing. Maybe it is information that is none of their business and the public's reason for wanting to know is not one of their basic rights. Public office holders may have rights, and should have rights, and be privileged to information according to their job requirements and no more no less.

Journalists have rights, but journalists also have the public trust to uphold. Often it is up to them to withhold information if it would not serve a public good. Maybe medical records are necessary for a judge to view, but journalists are not judges, and who has the right to know what ails that cranky old lady that just sued a newspaper for slander. A journalist can say she is contrary, or that she spit on the arresting sheriff but they cannot say she is suffering from such and such a disease without being allowed to see her medical records. They may or may not be allowed to. It may depend on what each state will allow. And what does each state allow and how do you, as a journalist, get the privilege of snooping?

Up until

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>