Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Background checks on reporters a bad idea
Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 9/9/2002 | Lillian Swanson

Posted on 09/09/2002 7:38:23 AM PDT by 2banana

Background checks on reporters a bad idea

By Lillian Swanson Inquirer Columnist

A rule that takes effect today requires reporters who work in the Harrisburg Capitol to undergo criminal background checks - unless they wait in line with school groups, Boy Scouts groups and other visitors to pass through metal detectors at the doors.

The rule, which leaves key questions unanswered, has spawned protests from about 25 reporters affected.

"Our position is that we have been singled out," said John Baer, a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News and president of the Pennsylvania Legislative Correspondents Association.

The complaints have made their way to Gov. Schweiker's office, where his chief of staff, Dave Sanko, will meet with Baer to listen to the concerns.

Reporters for The Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Associated Press and Harrisburg Patriot-News are among those who have desks in the statehouse newsroom. Some have complied with the background checks; others have refused.

The brouhaha began a few weeks ago as reporters got wind that the Department of General Services was writing more rules to button down security. The official came down late on Aug. 30, just before the Labor Day weekend.

Metal detectors and X-ray machines would soon be placed at five visitors' entrances. Lawmakers and their staffs would be granted easy-access cards, without background checks, because the DGS, a part of the executive branch, doesn't make rules for the legislature. The cards will permit legislators and their staffers to bypass those metal detectors and use the Capitol's underground garage.

State agency workers already are required to have criminal checks to land a government job.

That left those 25 reporters, many of whom have worked for years in the Capitol, to give their Social Security numbers to state police.

Of course, they could decline, but they would be denied access to the parking garage and would have to go through metal detectors every time they entered the building.

"It's ludicrous on its face," Baer said of the rule affecting reporters. "The only people who go to jail are the people we cover." He has a point. In the last two years, at least six state lawmakers have resigned after criminal convictions.

"It's high-handed stuff," said Tom Fitzgerald, who reports from the Capitol for The Inquirer. He and a colleague, Amy Worden, reluctantly agreed to the background check, and received word that they had passed.

"We don't know what 'passed' means," Fitzgerald said, noting he had many questions. Who will have access to the information that the state police find? What crime would keep a reporter from getting an access card?

DGS press secretary Samantha Elliott said the department had the best of intentions in offering access cards to reporters. "We were trying to make it easier because they are here all the time," she said. "We thought we were helping them out."

Elliott said she thought the results of the background checks would remain with state police. She was unable to say what kind of crime would cause a reporter to fail. "Anything that is a security or safety risk," she said.

Criminal background checks may seem innocuous. But think about the work reporters do, ferreting out public information that officials may try to keep secret. It's understandable why reporters are concerned about anyone gathering private information about them and possibly using it in retaliation. Background checks could be the beginning of a slippery slope toward government regulation. Is licensing down the road?

Baer's association suggested that reporters' employers, their newspapers, could provide letters vouching for them, but that offer was rejected.

Schweiker should latch onto this offer as a good way out of a bad rule that ignores the fundamental independence of the press. He should reverse a rule that could have a chilling effect on the public's right to know how its government works.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lillian Swanson is the reader advocate. Contact her at 215-854-2206 or lswanson@phillynews.com.


TOPICS: Editorial; Free Republic; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: backgroundchecks; press; rkba
Dear Ms. Swanson:

You wrote:

"Criminal background checks may seem innocuous. But think about the work reporters do, ferreting out public information that officials may try to keep secret. It's understandable why reporters are concerned about anyone gathering private information about them and possibly using it in retaliation. Background checks could be the beginning of a slippery slope toward government regulation. Is licensing down the road?"

You seem upset that you might need a background check to exercise a civil right enumerated in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. You also seem to think that this might be a "slippery slope" toward even more regulation.

I do not think you see the irony in this as the majority of the press (and the Philadelphia Inquirer in particular) was all in favor of background checks for law abiding citizens when they wanted to exercise a civil right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

Regards,

1 posted on 09/09/2002 7:38:23 AM PDT by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2banana
IMO this action is justified.

I do seem to recall that Al Qaeda operatives have posed as journalists in order to affect a hit.

2 posted on 09/09/2002 7:53:08 AM PDT by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Reporters are abaove the law in all regards, the first ammendment guarantees it. They can misstate facts, build bias into their work, conceal the identity of sources, taking gifts for presenting information in a desired way, make up sources, defame others, and hide behind the first ammendement when they violate any law. The employers of reporters are also above the law because they are the ones who actually own the property rights that employ the reporters. Next thing, the state will require repoerters to give state issued licenses to operate a car on public streets. Where will this abuse of reporters end?
3 posted on 09/09/2002 7:53:51 AM PDT by Tacis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
The only background check a potential interviewee would be interested in is "what is the reporter's history of exposing the frauds of the person they are interviewing?" In other words, doors are not opened to reporters that intend to report on a politician or bureaucrat's fraudulent acts. On the other hand, doors are opened to reporters that tow the line or at minimum, don't expose the frauds.
4 posted on 09/09/2002 7:54:45 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
"The only people who go to jail are the people we cover." He has a point. In the last two years, at least six state lawmakers have resigned after criminal convictions.

I guess they're above the law, right?

Sorry, they wipe with toilet paper the same as everyone else. Check 'em all....

5 posted on 09/09/2002 7:55:40 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Media people who report the news are not too bad. Media people who make the news (i.e., news sources) are the big problem.
6 posted on 09/09/2002 7:58:11 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Why? We would like to know about these leftist "clymers".

Know your enemy and IMHO most of them are America haters.

7 posted on 09/09/2002 7:59:27 AM PDT by Militiaman7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freebird Forever
I do seem to recall that Al Qaeda operatives have posed as journalists in order to affect a hit.

The leader of the Northern Alliance was assassinated right before 9/11 by two Al Qaeda operatives posing as journalists from Belgium.

8 posted on 09/09/2002 8:03:39 AM PDT by caa26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
A rule that takes effect today requires reporters who work in the Harrisburg Capitol to undergo criminal background checks

"When they came for the [X]s I was silent, because I wasn't a [X]."

9 posted on 09/09/2002 8:03:53 AM PDT by Eala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Militiaman7
I'll drive up there and do the checks. Want to? It would be fun!
10 posted on 09/09/2002 8:05:37 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
[D]o not think you see the irony in this as the majority of the press...was all in favor of background checks for law abiding citizens when they wanted to exercise a civil right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

...And while we're at it, how about a five-day 'cooling off' period before stories can be published, just in case a journalist might say something in the heat of the moment he'd later regret? It would be for their own good. ;^)

11 posted on 09/09/2002 8:05:52 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
That would be one heck of an adventure. And a public service to boot!

I wonder if we could get a grant from the FEDS to fund the project?

12 posted on 09/09/2002 8:07:38 AM PDT by Militiaman7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Reporters should be treated no different than normal Americans. That means if I have to undergo a background check, they should undergo a background check.
13 posted on 09/09/2002 8:10:36 AM PDT by adam stevens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Militiaman7
I'm sure WE wouldn't qualifty. Too knowledgeable or too fair!
14 posted on 09/09/2002 8:17:13 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: caa26
The leader of the Northern Alliance was assassinated right before 9/11 by two Al Qaeda operatives posing as journalists from Belgium.

Yup!!

And tactically, it would be far easier for radical islamists to duplicate this type of event then it would be to pull off another hijacking.

Background check 'em all.

15 posted on 09/09/2002 8:17:58 AM PDT by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Probably both, we have no AXE to grind.
16 posted on 09/09/2002 8:24:57 AM PDT by Militiaman7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Eala
Don't start with that. This is a case of reporters receiving a special privileged access that no one else has. Yes, they absolutely should have to undergo a background check. Reporters on Capitol Hill and the White House have to get one.
17 posted on 09/09/2002 8:55:29 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
"I do not think you see the irony in this as the majority of the press (and the Philadelphia Inquirer in particular) was all in favor of background checks for law abiding citizens when they wanted to exercise a civil right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution."

SPOT ON! That was my thought too while reading this whine.

18 posted on 09/09/2002 9:01:51 AM PDT by cibco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
OOOOOOOOOOHH! GOOD ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
19 posted on 09/09/2002 9:19:04 AM PDT by Mr. K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: 2banana
This is just the type of crap that pushes my buttons. Self important reporters thinking that societal rules/customs do not apply to them.

Once I was approached by a reporter wanting an interview. I said, "Fine. How much you paying?"

The reporter appeared to go into some sort of shock, "We don't pay for interviews"

I proceeded to point out that their news program helped raise funds for their network. A news program only attracts views if there are interesting interviews or interesting news events. Since I would be contributing towards an interview that would help a program earn money for a network that depended upon advertisers, I felt it appropriate to be compensated for my efforts.

The interview never happened, darn.

Maybe I can walk down the street and ask someone to fix my house's roof for free.

21 posted on 09/09/2002 5:37:41 PM PDT by VetoBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Well maybe the ACLU will tear into this one, then WE can turn around and ask them (ACLU) where they were when background checks were imposed on gun buyers.
And maybe remind them that the 2nd keeps and maintains all the OTHER freedoms (indirectly)
22 posted on 09/10/2002 8:34:59 AM PDT by two23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
hehe. Reporters really think that they are a special bunch. The Constitution keeps the gov from screwing with the press printing things, but it does not give reporters special rights and immunities.
23 posted on 09/10/2002 8:36:43 AM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
P.S. If felons cannot votew or own firearms, I'd love to see felons not being allow to be reporters.
24 posted on 09/10/2002 8:38:27 AM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
"Our position is that we have been singled out," said John Baer, a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News

Indeed, you have long been singled out for special treatment. I'm glad to hear that's finally being recognized and addressed, however minimally.

25 posted on 09/10/2002 8:41:54 AM PDT by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson