By OTIS SANFORD
The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal

Story posted on Jan. 28, 2007

Otis Sanford

WASHINGTON – It didn't take a trip to the nation's capital for me to conclude that the relationship these days between the press and government is awfully strained.

A quick visit to City Hall in Downtown Memphis would have been sufficient, and much cheaper.

But that was the overarching theme among participants at a recent First Amendment Summit sponsored by the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

Nearly 100 journalists, media attorneys and legal scholars gathered at the National Press Club here to raise questions and concerns about whether some of the rights firmly guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are under intense government assault.

I came because I am a staunch believer in all five rights contained in the amendment. It's no surprise that I'm particularly fond of the freedom of the press and our role as watchdogs – some would call us attack dogs and others lap dogs – of government.

We heard from top editors at The New York Times and The Washington Post who discussed the tough calls they've made recently in deciding to publish sensitive government information, actions the Bush administration considers harmful to national security.

We listened with empathy as two reporters from The San Francisco Chronicle talked about the very real likelihood that they are going to jail soon for refusing to disclose the source of leaked grand jury testimony. Their case, however, does not involve national security, just our national pastime – the Major League Baseball steroid scandal.

Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, showed up. But he couldn't say much because of the ongoing trial here of I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, who is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters regarding the public disclosure of a CIA officer.

And Michigan Congressman John Conyers was a last-minute addition to the roster of speakers. Conyers, a Democrat and the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, promised to push for a federal shield law that would protect journalists from having to reveal their sources to government investigators.

But the key question that hung over the day-long session was whether media-government relations – which have always been tense – are now approaching a crisis point.

The answer, at least from this crowd, was a resounding yes.

"The press is the arch antagonist of the government ... and so it always shall be," said Washington lawyer Kenneth Bass, a former Justice Department counsel for intelligence policy.

Phil Bronstein, editor of the Chronicle, agreed. "There is a natural adversarial relationship between a press that is doing its job and a government that is doing its job."

Only the government now appears to be fighting back with a vengeance.

And the combatants in this tussle stretch much farther than the Washington Beltway or San Francisco Bay.

Elected officials, government bureaucrats and political operatives in Memphis often complain that the media are unfair and only want to paint them in a negative light. Some even describe our motives at times as racist.

Earlier this month, several Memphis City Council members publicly complained about recent media attacks against one of their own.

They also mocked this newspaper's coverage of possible conflicts of interest involving council members.

"It won't become a conflict until it's a slow news day," Councilman Brent Taylor said.

So what are members of the public to make of this acrimony, and whose side are they on, particularly when opinion polls show citizens have little regard for the media and even less for politicians?

"I think the relationship between the press and government should always have some tension in it. That's what the Founders intended," said Bob Meyers, president of the Washington-based National Press Foundation.

He's correct, of course. But perhaps the media occasionally are guilty of being overzealous. At the same time, it's clear that far too many elected officials have forgotten what it means to be public servants.

In the end, as I ponder this rift between the press and the politicians I am reminded of a quote from Thomas Jefferson in 1787. "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

Otis L. Sanford is editor/opinion and editorials for The Commercial Appeal. Contact him at 529-2447 or via e-mail to sanford@commercialappeal.com

Otis L. Sanford is editor/opinion and editorials for The Commercial Appeal. In that position which reports to the publisher. Sanford oversees the daily and Sunday opinion pages, directs the newspaper's editorial board and is responsible for the paper's institutional voice. Before assuming that role, Sanford was managing editor for four years. He first joined The Commercial Appeal in 1977 as a reporter. Ten years later, he moved to The Pittsburgh Press as an assistant city editor. In 1992, Sanford joined The Detroit Free Press as deputy city editor, and returned to The Commercial Appeal as deputy managing editor in 1994. Sanford is a board member of the Associated Press Managing Editors and the Mid-America Press Institute.

Copyright 2007, commercialappeal.com – Memphis, TN. All Rights Reserved.