Posted on 04/18/2002 8:18:41 AM PDT by Skeet
On 15 April, the Senate Press Gallery Standing Committee met to “reconsider” the application of WorldNetDaily.com for "congressional press accreditation."
As I walked through a sea of pro-Israel demonstrators on the western end of the US Capitol, the irony was inescapable. While one group exercised its 1st Amendment rights, the largest independent news site on the Internet was being denied access to the Capitol by a committee made up of members of the press!
Committee Chairman Bill Roberts of Bloomberg informed the participants that WorldNetDaily would present its objections to the Committee’s original decision, which rested on three points, 1) that WND is associated with a nonprofit organization, 2) that WND lacks original content, and 3) that WND includes advertisements with its news articles.
Richard Ackerman of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) led off for the WND team, which consisted of himself, Joseph and Elizabeth Farah, and journalist Paul Sperry.
Ackerman stated that the committee’s decision effectively limits the marketplace of ideas to a narrow, predefined scope, and suggested that WND’s perceived “conservative / libertarian” views were a key factor. He pointed out that the committee’s content decision was based on 27 articles (out of 7000 original WND articles), most of which contained the word “conservative” in their titles.
“As a Constitutional matter, it (the committee’s decision) is inexcusable,” Ackerman said. He closed by saying that win, lose or draw, he had done all he could to protect the 1st Amendment.
Joseph Farah followed by reading from a prepared statement that pulled no punches. As he read, the members of the committee became more and more uncomfortable. But after waiting 15 months for the committee to grant his organization the same accreditation given to outlets such as Al-Ahram, Beijing Daily and the China Press, Farah had every right to be a bit perturbed. Farah expressed “little hope” that the committee would reverse its decision, but stated emphatically that, “We will not give up. We will not roll over.”
After hearing the committee’s questions, I began to get the feeling that Farah might be right. The members were preoccupied with Farah’s “association” with the Western Journalism Center (WJC). Farah and Ackerman attempted to explain that the relationship between for-profit and non-profit organizations is clearly defined in law, that WND must be separate from the WJC, and that the two organizations are in compliance with this requirement. Nevertheless, the “perception” of the committee was that “there is no separation.”
Next, the committee “discovered” that Joseph and his wife no longer hold positions on WJC’s board, and launched an immediate inquiry into what projects WJC did under Farah’s watch. This little fishing expedition drew a sharp response from Ackerman.
Then the committee attempted to back up its assertion that WND lacks significant original content. It appears that five members had gathered around a computer, pulled up the WND home page, and noticed that most of the articles were links to other sites. Based on this comprehensive bit of research, they determined that 95% of the information contained on the site was credited to other sources. Farah quickly countered with a list of 14,000 items that were split evenly between news stories and commentary, and noted that most print papers rely heavily on wire services for content. The members of the committee appeared unmoved.
The committee’s final objection was to including ads with news articles. This baffled me. It only takes a quick glance at your local paper to see that about 80% of it is one form of advertisement or another. Ackerman underlined the point: if the committee considers it objectionable to sell items such as Bill O’Reilly’s book, The No Spin Zone on WND’s site, how can it justify credentialing papers that print personal ads? “Have you seen some of those ads?” asked Ackerman.
As the meeting wound down, Washington newsman Patrick Clawson stood to make an unsolicited statement for WND. In a booming voice, Clawson said that the committee’s inquiry into news gathering practices was offensive, that they were violating the 1st Amendment, and that they were “urinating on the Constitution of the United States.” As he spoke, a committee associate was dispatched to locate the Capitol Hill Police. Thankfully, Mr. Clawson had finished his remarks by the time the police arrived, though they did stay to escort us out of the building as soon as the meeting ended.
It was clear by now that the committee was less interested in facts than in finding excuses to justify their decision. When WND presented evidence countering its earlier objections, the committee members came up with new questions. How many times did Paul Sperry use his press pass? Why was so much WND stock “given” to WJC when the two entities split? What are your connections with Judicial Watch and Richard Mellon Scaife? How does WND make money? Can you describe your daily operations? How many beat reporters do you have and what do they cover?
I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised, but I still nearly hit the floor when one member asked how to distinguish between a WND article and one from another source. In disbelief, Farah said something like, “Well, they have the letters WND in the byline.” When the committee stated that it could find no original articles produced by WND, Sperry responded, “Did anyone take a look at our ‘WND Scoops’ section? Anyone?” Silence. The committee members obviously had no idea how to use the site.
In his closing remarks, Richard Ackerman reminded the committee members of the obligations they were evading. The committee must grant equal application of the law to WND. The committee may not rely on associations with other groups to deny accreditation and are not allowed to decide how newsgathering is done. The committee’s “original and significant content” objection is inadequately researched and subjectively applied. Finally, the committee has a fundamental duty to the Constitution, and must therefore “give the benefit to the 1st Amendment.”
He might as well have saved his breath.
Go WND! Go Fight Win!
We must support Mr. Farah on this!
If WND wants to really make this happen, they need to attack the root of the problem, not just the branches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.