This just in: The CJR is suing the state of New York for access to email correspondence between Gov. Paterson's former PR staff and members of the press. The journal is looking for emails from around the time of an exceptionally weird period of Albany rumor-mongering this winter, leading up to a damning New York Times story and the Governor's withdrawal from the upcoming election.
Under New York State's Freedom of Information Law, any citizen is entitled to have access to most government records, including
reports, statements, examinations, memoranda, opinions, folders, files, books, manuals, pamphlets, forms, papers, designs, drawings, maps, photos, letters, microfilms, computer tapes or discs, rules, regulations or codes.
And, might we also add, emails. The CJR explains why they care hard enough to fight a long and tedious lawsuit over the emails:
Why? Well, let us count the ways. First, we’re journalists, and we don’t like taking no for an answer.
More seriously, the records we’re seeking would likely help illuminate the press’s role in a bizarre chain of events in state history that led to the appointment of an Independent Counsel and to the governor dropping his election campaign. Sure, there will be lots of chaff in those e-mails. But perhaps they’d offer some information explaining the resignations, show reporters testing the most bizarre theories circulating at the time, or catalogue an evolving damage-control line from the state’s highest official.
Any of that would all be potentially interesting, and that’s why we will exercise our rights under the law and file suit.
The state has denied the CJR's request (here's a PDF of the denial letter) on some very ingenious grounds: First, that the emails would reveal the trade secrets of fellow reporters; and second, that a state shield law designed to protect reporters from government subpoena also covers any emails between reporters and their sources.
In other words, by not disclosing the emails, the state is arguing that it's protecting reporters.
Rubbish, says the CJR.
The state is claiming that the e-mails—none of which are less than five months old—might reveal proprietary lines of reporting, sources, or “methods used by reporters to conduct their research.” Proprietary methods like e-mailing the governor’s communications staff for information or comment? Please.
And this:
The shield law protects journalists from subpoenas about their sources and reporting. It does not protect sources from being compelled to testify. Expanding its protections to sources—especially to government sources, paid by taxpayers, and acting in their official capacity—would pervert and dilute the law. Besides, any talk of testimony is entirely besides the point here. The FOIL process is not a subpoena, and the shield does not protect public records—even if those records reflect some aspect of a journalist’s communication with a public official—from being disclosed pursuant to a proper records request.
However this case turns out, it could have serious ramifications for open-government law in New York State.
We'll be rooting for the CJR. And we're surely not the only ones. New York has historically fared poorly in nationwide studies of transparency and open government. In 2007, we got an "F" from the Better Government Association for responsiveness to freedom of information requests, and a ranking of #37 amongst our fellow states.
In short, New York could use a little more sunshine, at all levels of government.
Photo of Lego sun sculpture from the Nathan Sawaya exhibit at the Flinn Gallery in Greenwich, Connecticut. Taken by Flickr user Tony the Misfit, published under a Creative Commons license.
