First Amendment can create obstacles for news gatherers

After chaining herself to the steps of her home that was a crime scene, Catherine Scott, grandmother of Richard Poplawski, was interviewed by numerous organizations while sitting and protesting the fact that she was denied admittance to the house, threatening to sue the media if they published or aired her comments.

At a press conference held for the signing of a new contract, Steelers linebacker James Harrison was recently surrounded by inquisitive and interested members of the media, who assembled after the event was scheduled.

Countless news gatherers were turned away to interview death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal inside a Philadelphia prison after he was jailed in 1982 for allegedly killing a young city cop.

Reporters were able to cover the first two events and not the last because, in the first two instances, their actions were legal and protected under the First Amendment. However in the third, the media was not covered and was denied access due to stipulations.

Though the First Amendment exists to aid the media in not becoming abbreviated in any way, past events arose that made reporters realize they were not always defended, putting a damper on the news-gathering process.

I feel that it is the public's assumption that some form of the media will cover any and all events that happen, but these people have no clue in most cases what's classified as news and if it is even possible to obtain information and interviews.

In the case of reporters talking with Scott, she was on public property and was a limited purpose public figure because she had pushed herself into the limelight. Those who spoke with her were not trespassing, as it was not a private place and they were not violating Pennsylvania law by recording her after getting consent. She complained that she'd sue, but has no legal basis whatsoever. However, in the soon-to-be case of her grandson, it is a different story when the media wish to have any contact with inmates.

Though aiming to keep the freedom of the press as open as possible, the whole news-gathering process is basically unmentioned and, therefore, not shielded by the First Amendment. In the 1970s, after reporters were denied interviews with certain prisoners in California, the case Pell v. Procunier arose. The media's argument in this instance and a similar one involving The Washington Post's reporters did not hold up, as a five to four ruling was made by the Supreme Court in regards to both cases.

"Newsmen have no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded the general public," Justice Stewart said, who was quoted in Don R. Pember and Clay Calvert's book, "Mass Media Law."

That policy is played out when looking at the media's access to prisons.

After a stint in the '80s where so-called radio journalist Abu-Jamal was jailed and made everyone believe he was innocent of the crime he was charged for, stricter policies regarding visitation were put into place, as people were coming from everywhere to talk with him and aggravated jail employees, who thought that members of the news should be treated like everyday people.

That's fine if we are talking about accessing public information, but how are occurrences in jails supposed to get covered?

As a journalist who recently began "getting her feet wet" in the investigative side and corresponding with inmates, I have become familiar with the Department of Correction's conduct and am already angered by some of its policies.

For example, Section VI, segment C about facility visits by news media representatives states that one standard, spiral reporter's notebook, which is 4 inches by 8 inches, can be brought along with a single pen or pencil. However, these items can only be brought to the visitation room for an interview if the reporter has asked permission on the letter that was sent initially asking to visit. If the reporter does not ask to bring a writing utensil and notebook, they are basically told by workers at the prison that it's too bad and that paper scraps can be found lying around the visitation room.

There is a section in the policy about requests for television and digital cameras, but the jails only seem to allow such equipment sporadically and are not in tune with consistency. This is unconstitutional for the news organizations and also inmates because they still have rights while being imprisoned.

And in terms of journalists being able to attend Harrison's press conference, that's not unbelievable, since news gatherers can't be banned from conferences. I think that makes sense but do not think it is right that government officials are able to decline speaking with journalists. In other words, we are not covered under the First Amendment, giving us no right to demand them to speak with us.

In the case Youngstown v. McKelvey, there was a no-comment policy against the Business Journal, which was put in place by former Youngstown mayor McKelvey, stating that the city's employees were not able to speak with reporters from the publication. How is it right that the reporters would not be allowed to speak with those employed by the government? I understand that it was said to be OK by the court because of loopholes, but it defeats the purpose of having news organizations to tell people what is going on.

But to guide journalists to public information and protect their rights, the Freedom of Information Act was put into place in the '60s. The FOIA can be used to gather information that is not apparent. Pennsylvania is governed by a law called the Right To Know Act, which has similar rules.

"Reporters who don't use FOIA are missing what everyone else is not seeing, the information that's not given out at press conferences or in press releases - information the government would rather you not see," Russell Carollo, Pulitzer Prize winner and former Sacramento Bee reporter, said, in an interview with Loren Cochran from The Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The bottom line is that to be a reporter, you have to be on your toes and know the law. Though certain policies create obstacles, excuses aren't acceptable, and you have to be able to overcome them and do everything necessary to obtain the information needed to inform the public.