JUDGE CONFUSED OVER JUSTICE SCALIA POSITION ON MEDIA ACCESS
It’s hard to understand the distinction between broadcast and print reporters that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made, said Judge Michael McAdam, pres. of the American Judges Assn. (AJA). “I don’t understand the distinction if the issue is an accurate description of a public event,” McAdam said. At issue is an incident at a high school in Hattiesburg, Miss., last week where a federal marshal guarding Scalia ordered 2 reporters to erase tape recordings they were making of his speech (CD April 12 p7).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The RTNDA and the Society of Professional Journalists immediately deplored the seizure as trampling the First Amendment rights of reporters. In response Scalia wrote a letter to The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press apologizing for the incident saying he’s revising his policy to permit recording for use of the print media to promote accurate reporting. However, Scalia didn’t provide a similar courtesy to electronic media. “The electronic media have in the past respected my First Amendment right not to speak on radio or TV when I do not wish to do so, and I am sure that courtesy will continue,” Scalia wrote in his letter. Scalia’s office didn’t return our calls.
McAdam did admit that the media, especially TV, can be intrusive. The AJA often doesn’t have its meetings open to the public for security purposes, he said, but press credentials could be verified if the Assn. chose to open the meeting to the reporters, presumably presenting less of a security risk, he told us.
RTNDA urged Scalia to change his treatment of electronic media. “Surely the TV and radio reporting should be just as accurate,” said RTNDA Pres. Barbara Cochran in letter to Scalia: “One of the reasons the public turns to TV and radio for its news is because they can see and hear for themselves exactly what took place.”
There’s also a distinction between private and public functions when barring the media from covering an event, several First Amendment attorneys said. If Scalia was speaking at the Knights of Columbus, a private club, then he can apply his right not to allow reporters to cover the event, said attorney Robert Corn-Revere.
McAdam agreed. “I have the right to say at private events, no to the media, but public events are different. If I have been invited to speak at a 4th of July event [in a town square], I can’t tell the media to turn off the camera.” In Scalia’s case the high school officials invited the media to attend the speech, so there were no ground rules set beforehand with regard to restrictions on the coverage. “You have to be clear ahead of time,” McAdam said.
Scalia’s assertion of a First Amendment right not to be broadcast is backward thinking, said Media Access Project Pres. Andrew Schwartzman: “First Amendment values really promote informing the public of government scrutiny. I think he has got it backwards.”