Should journalists who push agendas be treated the same as lobbyists?

By SN Saturday February 9, 2008

Associated Press – February 7, 2008:

A lawmaker ridiculed in editorials and cartoons last year for his positions on environmental legislation is pushing a bill that would curtail the presence of the journalists he blames the most.

Rep. Jim Gooch, a Democrat who is chairman of the state House Natural Resources and Environment Committee, was the subject of critical editorials and cartoons when he attempted to quash a coal mine safety bill and claimed global warming was a hoax. One editorial cartoon showed Gooch in a hot tub with King Coal.

The legislation he is pushing would list editorial writers and cartoonists as lobbyists. Since lobbyists aren’t allowed in the House or Senate while lawmakers are in session, those journalists would essentially be banned from the chambers.

David Thompson, executive director of the Kentucky Press Association, said Gooch’s bill is an obvious First Amendment violation that he doesn’t expect to be passed into law.

11 Comments

Dallas says:

2/9/2008 at 4:50 am

At first glance, I would say YES. It serves as a counterbalance to professional lobbyists.

At least editorial and cartoons need to pass public scrutiny unlike the tactic of slimy lobbyists.
MikeN says:

2/9/2008 at 5:26 am

They should apply this to campaign finance reform as well. Why should editorial pages give out an endorsement of whom to vote for, a position that would cost hundreds of thousands at some papers, without it being considered a campaign contribution? If I took out an ad recommending the same thing, it would be against the law.
Cinaedh says:

2/9/2008 at 7:49 am

If ya can’t stand the heat, Rep. Jim Gooch…
Mister Catshit says:

2/9/2008 at 8:30 am

I’m flabbergasted !!! MikeN has made an intelligent point.

What is the price of freedom of expression? Why may the Editorial Board of a large newspaper give a politician a huge boost for free yet the average Joe Blow not?
Angel H. Wong says:

2/9/2008 at 8:42 am

He might want some cheese to go with that whine.
emeryjay says:

2/9/2008 at 8:50 am

There are a couple of barriers to Rep. Gooch’s legislation:

First, the editorials are free speech, which is protected to a point, and then there is that little item in the constitution that prevents congress from passing laws regarding the establishment of a free press.

Second, anything Gooch says on the floor of the house is yet another form of protected free speech. He can;t be held liable for anything he says during proceedings. So let him criticize the cartoon and editorials from the house floor.

Jefferson said: “No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, none ever will. The agitation is produces must be submitted to, for it keeps the waters pure.”

And an editorial endorsements can’t be considered a campaign contribution. In many local races, an editorial endorsement isn’t worth the cheap paper it’s printed on. Readers use them and vote opposite.

In closing, the only one who enjoys the free press is the guy who owns one.
TIHZ_HO says:

2/9/2008 at 9:29 am

Shame that people confuse “free press” with “accuurate unbiased press”.

Cheers
soundwash says:

2/9/2008 at 12:18 pm

well if that were the case, then they’d have to ban the major news media from the chambers too.

if any “free” enterprise/press is guilty of having money sticking out of it’s hole, its the mainstream news corporations. -imo they play a very large part in controlling who gets elected

better to just eliminate lobbyism(?)
all together and call it a day.

(now all we have to do is get rid of those bloody electronic voting machines and *maybe* some faith will be restored to the whole process. -maybe)

-s
Greg Allen says:

2/9/2008 at 12:22 pm

Yes. Fox News is clearly a political action organization. It should not be treated like legitimate media.
Mister Catshit says:

2/9/2008 at 3:31 pm

#6, emeryjay

then there is that little item in the constitution that prevents congress from passing laws regarding the establishment of a free press.

(ahem) I just wish people could read the Constitution before quoting it. There is nothing in the Constitution or Amendments regarding the “establishment” of a “free press”.

So why can a newspaper, TV station, or any radio host support a candidate BUT you or I can’t buy an ad to say the exact same thing?

I don’t care how much Rush Limburger or Michael (Weiner) Savage say Clinton is a bitch or Obama went to a Madras School. The thing is they can and I can’t. If you want to say I can own my own radio station (just like them), then please ask the FCC to give me some comparable frequency so that I may also broadcast my opinion.
emeryjay says:

2/10/2008 at 5:52 pm

Mister Catshit is correct and thanks for calling me to task. Here is what it says:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

We probably don’t agree on a couple of things, but I would defend your right to say it to the death. Why waste money on an ad when we all have influence with friends that is more powerful than an ad.

I’m betting you can have an Internet radio station. And I don’t think those are regulated by the FCC.

Personally I prefer Gush Windbag as a name for Limbaugh.