By Joel Thurtell
The Detroit Free Press seemed both angry and mystified in its June 8, 2008 story about a Detroit judge who barred the public and media from a hearing about evidence in Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s text message scandal.
Two big guns from the paper — Editor Paul Anger and longtime Free Press attorney and nationally-recognized First Amendment expert Herschel Fink took shots at 36th District Judge Ronald Giles’ ruling on Tuesday, June 3, in which he said a hearing earlier, on May 20, correctly was held in private.
“The Constitution clearly indicates openness,” Anger was quoted in his paper. Closing the hearing “does not support the Constitution, and it does not support the public right to know about the proceedings involving the mayor.”
The paper indirectly quoted Fink saying “openness — especially in a criminal case involving alleged misconduct by a public official — is vital to assure public faith in the courts.”
What hypocrites.
Lest readers mistake the Free Press and its parent, Gannett, for white knights pursuing the holy grail of First Amendment openness, I’ll point out that the paper plays this game from both sides of the field. When it wants government to be open for news purposes, it shrieks about First Amendment rights. But when it deals with its own employees, or for that matter anyone who litigates against the company, the paper and its Virginia-based owner are the first ones to deny First Amendment rights and to demand that records be closed.
When it’s their own ox being gored, screw the First Amendment.
If you want to learn more about the corporate sociopathology of Gannett, read Richard McCord’s chilling book, “The Chain Gang.” McCord gives a lucid account of First Amendment champion Gannett’s First Amendment misbehavior when its own chestnuts are in the fire.
Actually, their chestnuts were sizzling last year when they tried to discipline me over my donation to Michigan Democrats in 2004, when the Free Press wasn’t even owned by Gannett. The paper responded to a Newspaper Guild grievance on my behalf with an insight into how they really regard the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights, it turns out, is an opportunity sometimes and sometimes it’s a liability.
In the August 6, 2007 letter written by Detroit Media Partnership Human Resources Director Kirstin Starkey, the paper showed they mistakenly believed that the Guild was grieving my case on free speech grounds and were quick to point out their view on my First Amendment rights. Which is that I had none.
Here’s what Starkey told Detroit Local 22 Guild President Louis Mleczko: “With regard to your assertion that employees’ First Amendment rights are being violated, please be aware that First Amendment rights are limited to public institutions. The Free Press, a private employer, is not held to this standard.”
Wow. Low standard for Gannett, high standard for the rest of the world.
Out of one side of its institutional mouth the Free Press rants about its First Amendment rights, while sneering out of the other half of its orifice that employees including the very reporters trying to get into those closed court hearings don’t have similar rights.
Help me out here: How can the Free Press demand openness on First Amendment grounds if its privately employed reporters don’t have First Amendment rights?
Kwame Kilpatrick, take note. Judges, attorneys in First Amendment cases pushed by the Free Press be aware. The paper is on record. Freedom of expression is not a fundamental principle for them. Rather, it’s a pretense to be taken up when convenient and discarded when suppressing information — or people — better serves their private purposes.
Contact me at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com
