Closing Ranks

How badly must the DFL Majority in the MN Legislature messed up? Anytime that you get unflappable reporters like Esme Murphy and Mary Lahammer accusing you of censorship, you know it is bad. I will let the writers at PIM lead off...

The news hit WCCO-TV with a Pat Kessler segment this evening detailing the restrictive new rules floated by the House Sergeant-at-Arms. Via twitter and official blog, 'CCO anchor Esme Murphy was mighty ticked about the "censorship proposed" by the House authorities (and reposted the agreement that the Sergeant is pitching [PDF]).

GOP Senate communications director Michael Brodkorb and Jason Barnett from TheUptake.org agreed that more transparency, not less, is what's really needed at this pivotal time. DFL Majority Leader Rep. Tony Sertich (DFL-Chisholm) continues to show his concern for the authenticity of various media categories — implicitly this seems to be about preventing nettlesome partisan "trackers" from taping embarrassing quips for campaign ads.

First off, any time you get Michael Brodkorb and Jason Barnett (or anyone from the UpTake) on the same side, you are pretty much in deep water.

Second, the people that the DFL have gone after (so far) have been far from partisan "trackers". Dan Ochsner and Dan Davis are long time old media representatives. Ochsner (representing KNSI radio in St. Cloud) was denied his press credential renewal this year and Davis (a photographer and Capitol bureau chief for Forum Communications' Minnesota) was pulled aside by state troopers after taking a picture " in a public meeting, in a public building of a publically elected lawmaker."...from Ms. Lahammer....

This is a building we all pay for and lawmakers we pay for making laws that affect us all. We in press take our responsibility to tell you what is happening very seriously. Needless to say there is great outrage that the young House DFL leadership would allow this to happen.

From Ms. Murphy...

The proposal has been amended to strike the first three provisions which called for journalists to agree not to videotape audience members, individual house members and any interactions before or after the committee convenes or adjourns. For a complete look at the original proposal click here.

The proposal, as it stands now, still represents a troubling narrowing of the definition of a journalist. The Society of Professional Journalists issued this statement this afternoon:

"It's our understanding the first three of the proposed rules are already tossed out, which is a good thing since they triggered the strongest response. However, SPJ is concerned about the rules that continue to try to narrow the definition of what a journalist is and who should be allowed to document the workings of state government.

Now I can so that there are some certain common sense restrictions that should be in place. I mean, it would not hurt to make sure that the person coming is who he (or she) says he is. However, excuse that they offered up was so lame, it took Ms. Murphy next to no effort to not only debunk it, but thoroughly ridicule it there can be no excuse....

The proliferation of bloggers and journalists at the capitol and everywhere allows more people access to more information. It is not, as Rep. Tony Sertich, maintains "a security threat." The capitol has its own police force, after all.

Oops, maybe I shouldn't have said that. Maybe the House leaders will start using capitol police to monitor reporters. Blog readers can provide their own historical references for that kind of a policy.

This is the mindset of the current crop of Democrats on the national and local level - especially those in leadership. The same people that are pushing this are pushing the return of the Fairness Doctrine. They simply can not stand to have their ideas challenged and the more their ideas come out, the more people challenge those ideas! Freedom of press apparently only applies to the press that wants to toe the leaderships line...everyone else need not apply.