by Rich Browne

Created on: August 08, 2007   Last Updated: April 25, 2008

The answer is without any doubt: Yes.

Where is it in the purview of the government to ration access to the halls of the legislative branch of a representative government?

Yes, there is a valid and understandable argument to certify certain people to be eligible to access areas that if congested with a horde of people wanting to report to others on what they witnessed would mean that what was occurring at the venue would be difficult or impossible to do what it has come to do.

This is the social contract "journalists" have with their subscribers as well as those they report on. The journalist is asked by both sides to witness events and then to report back to their subcribers/viewers/listeners as objectively as they can (with the understanding that no human can truly be objective but sees everything through the prism of their life experience which affects their perceptions).

Those they report on understand this function and in the interest of expediency and efficiency have agreed to allow these "journalists" in while excluding others. While private entities have every right to expect a right of privacy, government in a representative democracy does not necessarily enjoy the same expectation. In fact, there should be no expectation of privacy when conducting government business.

Yes, there are certain functions of government (mostly in the executive and judicial branches) where there is a necessity for information to be held on close hold and access restricted to in on the short term. However, over the long run, even those debates, intelligence and information sharing activities should be open for review by the public the government serves.

What gives the journalist in the United States the right to such credentialing? Nothing in the Constitution does. An absolutist's reading of the operative First Amendment respecting the freedom of the press would conclude that while representatives of those owning the presses (radio stations/TV stations) have the indisputable right to air pretty much what they want. In other words, an inalienable right to disseminate news and views to all who will listen. The Constitution, however, remains silent on whether "journalists" have a corollary right to gather news and that is what this question addresses.

The problem here is how does one define a "journalist"? Is it necessary to be a "journalist" for a person to be an owner of a press medium, or at least an employee of one? Having been a "professional journalist" for more than 30 years,

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>