The Problem of Politically Favored Journalism

Complete Colorado published my article, “Legislature has no business defining ‘news media.’” The piece begins:

Equality before the law is a fundamental tenet of broadly liberal republican democracy. Yet under new draft legislation concerning “access to government records,” dated March 9 and sponsored by Senator Chris Hansen and Rep. Marc Snyder, some journalists would be more equal than others under Colorado law.

Getting government into the business of defining what is and what is not “news media,” as the draft legislation seeks to do, is a very dangerous game. As I remarked on Twitter, the measure “creates a caste system of government-privileged reporters and second-class citizens.”

I go into some of the particulars of the draft legislation and discuss at some length the proper governmental approach to releasing public information. I write:

Here are the guidelines I recommend. 1) Government should automatically publish as much public information online as possible. 2) If government does not automatically publish public information, others may request it (subject to reasonable redaction for privacy and security) at no cost to the person making the request, with everyone subject to the same rules. That approach keeps politicians out of the business of deciding which requests for public information are favored and which are not. As a compromise, if government wants to charge fees for nuisance requests, broadly defined, I think we can live with that. If governments insist on charging fees across the board—again, I don’t think they should—at least they should set the same rules for all comers. But in no case should government try to privilege certain Coloradans over others in granting access.

I also point out:

If this bill goes forward as drafted, it will undermine journalistic independence from government and further inflame public polarization regarding news media.

Read the entire piece. Also, please do me a favor and share it with your friends.

Other Takes on the Information Access Draft Bill

Jason Salzman, editor of the Colorado Times-Recorder, writes:

As the traditional news media decline, it will be even more important for ordinary people to file CORAs and hold government accountable—to do the job of the legacy media. The leg should pass a bill to pay groups like [the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition] and others to train citizens on how to file CORAs, etc.

I’m not sure about the state subsidy for such training, but I’d love to see at least more privately funded training along those lines.

Jeffrey Roberts of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition writes:

While Hansen’s proposal does not curb rising CORA fees for the general public, as CFOIC hoped it would, the bill cuts the hourly research-and-retrieval rate in half for requesters who fit the legislation’s definition of “news media” because of journalists’ essential role in reporting about government for their communities.

He explains:

The different deadlines and research-and-retrieval rates in the bill are an attempt to appease agencies and local governments, which have complained for years that political operatives, law firms and “data miners”—some from out of state—often overwhelm their records custodians with burdensome, time-consuming records requests.

I wish Roberts were more upset about the disparate treatment of officially recognized “news media” versus everyone else, but he offers a very good summary of the bill. As Roberts’s organization acknowledges, it would not meet the requirements of “news media” under the bill, even though it provides a lot of high-quality news to people of the state.

Denver Post reporter Elise Schmelzer, responding to Roberts’s report, writes:

Bummer that the draft does not appear to address the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, which covers law enforcement records. Specifically: there is no deadline for agencies to respond under CCJRA. I am waiting for Aurora police to respond to a request I submitted in August.

Colorado Newsline editor Quentin Young writes, “I have not seen that draft, but a four-year-old provision would be problematic, to put it mildly. Newsline isn’t even three yet.”

Newsline reporter Chase Woodruff, with whom I often disagree, shares my concerns about the bill. He writes:

This is a very bad idea! No journalist or journalistic organization should support this. We should be advocates for broad values of public transparency and accountability, not for awarding specific privileges to ourselves.

Just so.

Image: Jim McDougall