passopenrecords.org

First Amendment: “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.”

Why did the framers include “freedom . . . of the press” in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? For one thing, note its relationship to free speech. Clearly, they considered protecting the publication of ideas, observations and opinions a logical and critical extension of the freedom to express them at all. I mean, what good is freedom of speech if you have to keep your ideas to yourself? Moreover, the framers knew first hand that the role of an independent press is to bring to the public those things that governments want desperately to keep secret. That is why two of the first actions of totalitarian states – of all political stripes – are (1) to shut down the independent press and (2) to substitute for it media outlets controlled by, and speaking, for the state.

And that is why an open records law with teeth is the foundation of representative democracy. Its function is to keep government itself open and honest. . . . as Neil Sheehan recounted at the recent memorial service for David Halberstam:

Neil Sheehan described a day when an outpost north of Saigon fell to a Vietcong assault and the military would not let reporters fly there on military aircraft. That evening, Mr. Halberstam called the United States military commander, Gen. Paul D. Harkins, at his villa to complain.

The briefing for reporters the next day was given by a brigadier general who began, Mr. Sheehan said, “by lecturing us lowly reporters for having had the temerity to disturb the commanding general at home.”

Mr. Halberstam did not let that pass, Mr. Sheehan said: “’General,’ David boomed in his great loud voice, ‘we are not corporals. We do not work for you. We work for our editors. If you have any complaints, complain to our editors. We will disturb the commanding general at home any time we have to do so in order to get our job done. The American public has a right to know what’s going on here.’”

Closer to home and nearer to now . . .

• In his June 4th testimony before the Senate State Government Committee, Carl Lavin, Deputy Managing Editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, described the efforts of his staff to get the Philadelphia Department of Human Services to release its records on the condition of children under its care.

He talked about the babies who died in DHS care while the department and the city of Philadelphia refused to make public their own reviews that pointed out the egregious flaws in department policies and procedures. Only after the Inquirer did a series of investigatory articles did the city start to make more of this information public.

That series has just been awarded the Casey Medal. The judges wrote:

In this effective series, the Inquirer thoroughly documented the Philadelphia Department of Human Service’s callous neglect of abused children it was charged with protecting. When officials refused to provide information on many cases, the reporters combed neighborhoods to give the stories scope and depth. Response was significant: Moved by the children’s stories and nailed by the hard-nosed reporting, state legislators toughened laws and city officials had no option but to clean house at the agency.