Editor and Publisher asks whether Barack Obama’s presidency will be accessible and whether reporters will hold the administration to answer for its policies and practices. See what major news organizations have to say:

Top News Outlets Assemble New Teams In Washington—Barack Biting to Begin Soon?

By Joe Strupp
Published: November 26, 2008 10:33 AM ET

NEW YORK So what can we expect from the White House press corps in the era of Obama?

For one thing, many faces in the press room at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will be changing, with most news outlets staffing the beat with fresh troops, and in some cases, more of them. There is also the reality of a new president coming in, via an historic path as the first black chief executive. Will reporters be reluctant to grill him as harshly as some of the previous 43 for fear of being labeled racist? Or, to fight charges of “liberal bias,” will many scrutinize his policies even more?

And how accessible will Obama be? He did not mingle informally very often with the press during his campaign, and his aides kept a tight leash on information and overall access. Will that carry over to the White House years? He did hold a press conference three days after the election, during which, a la George W. Bush, he called on reporters by their first names (though without any nicknames).

Finally, will Obama get, and does he deserve, any “honeymoon” given the string of serious problems the country faces, from the economic collapse to Iraq and Afghanistan? “For everyone, the beginning of a new administration is a chance to start over,” says John Walcott, The McClatchy Co.’s Washington bureau chief. “There was reluctance early in the Bush Administration to scrutinize him enough. That had as much to do with 9/11 as it did with the White House press corps.”

Walcott, whose newsroom was credited with being among the few that repeatedly questioned prewar Iraq intelligence, says reporters on that beat have to ignore any temptation to hold back or fear retribution.

He adds that none should expect a wide-open administration given Obama’s record on the campaign trail: “I am not holding out hope that this administration will set a new standard for transparency. My impression is that the campaign had expressed a certain amount of control.”

Steven Thomma, who covered the Clinton Administration for the former Knight Ridder bureau and now will take over a McClatchy White House post, agrees. “Every White House is more
controlling than the one before,” he says. “There is probably a false assumption that he is accessible. I did not see a lot of interviews. Obama was not doing them at all.”

Charles J. Lewis, Washington bureau chief for Hearst, echoes that view. “Obama has not been very accessible,” he says. “But all presidents are controlling in their own way.”

So will Obama’s historic achievement help him deflect some press scrutiny? “There is an added dimension to covering Obama because he is different than any other president,” says Dean Baquet, The New York Times’ Washington bureau chief. “But I don’t see any conflict in being an aggressive news bureau. We will be as aggressive as we always are.”

Adds Andy Alexander, bureau chief of Cox Newspapers’ D.C. office, “It is a difficult question for me to answer because the only way I know is to scrutinize.” Jim Vandehei, executive editor of Politico and a veteran White House reporter for The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, fears that too much emphasis on Obama the man, and the history, could take away from digging and policy reporting: “There is a danger that all of the emphasis is on Obama, the first black president and the cultural change.”

Lewis contends that some could ease up. “It is my firm opinion that any group of journalists is willing to cut a public official a little more slack if they like him or her,” he says. “Everyone has got a sense of good will.”

But some of those same journalists contend Obama may get the shortest honeymoon of any recent president, given the long list of problems he will face. “Coverage of this White House will be so much more intense for the first couple of years than anything we have seen before,” claims Vandehei. “Everything can be dissected moment by moment. There are going to be more people covering the administration. I don’t know how they will fit them all into the briefing room.”

Phil Bennett, the Washington Post’s managing editor, says too much attention could be focused on whether Obama is enjoying an easy go: “I thought that honeymoon idea never really existed anyway. This is going to be a set of stories that engage almost all of the best and ambitious and most talented journalists in Washington. Given the problems we face, I don’t think the Obama Administration is going to catch a lot of breaks.”

Alexander agrees, noting, “It is a little bit myth. It didn’t take long for the press to start criticizing the Clinton transition. Given all of the problems facing the country, Obama will begin to be pressed immediately.”

Already, The Washington Post, McClatchy, and The New York Times have announced new White House reporters, with the Post and The Washington Times increasing their staffing, while others are simply changing faces. But even with the addition of White House assignments to some news outlets, an overall cutback in Washington bureaus that began more than a year ago is picking up speed. Several veterans say cutbacks occurring at places as varied as Tribune newspapers and Media General will mean fewer people to keep watch on the new administration and a new, heavily Democratic Congress.

“Resources are scarcer today than they have been in a long time,” says McClatchy’s Walcott. “There are simply fewer reporters in Washington.” Andy Alexander of Cox says he will not have a full-time White House scribe after Ken Herman returns to the chain’s Austin American-Stateman. At Hearst, Lewis says he has not had a full-timer in years among his three-person group. “The reporting that is needed is the accountability reporting, digging into the agencies, behind the scenes,” says Vandehei.

Still, several editors say the excitement of a new administration is making the White House beat more attractive and prime for news. “Covering the new administration is the plum assignment in Washington, and it is going to be a great story because of the interaction of this historic president and all of these issues,” says Bennett at the Post. “The focus is going to be driven by events more than Obama’s newness to the scene.” His paper will expand its crew of full-time White House correspondents from two to four. That will also include the paper’s first Web-based White House reporter.

Bennett says Chris Cillizza, who writes for the popular blog “The Fix,” will likely rename it “The White House Fix.” Bennett adds, “This is the first time we have had a Web person who is a core part of our White House coverage. Coming off the campaign, I think the Web has become an integral part of our overall [White House] coverage, and the leading edge of our breaking news coverage.”

In an op-ed essay in the San Francisco Chronicle, a student at Acalanes High School in Lafayette asserts that the promotion of diversity must be accompanied by tolerance for free speech, controversial or otherwise.

Torching free speech in the name of tolerance

David McDiarmid
Tuesday, November 25, 2008

“Degrading, racial, ethnic, homophobic, sexist or other hateful remarks ARE NOT acceptable here”

- from a sign posted in every Acalanes High School classroom. Acalanes High School administration has declared the creation of a climate of tolerance to be one of its top priorities, and this sign is only one of its many tools.

To a large extent, the school seems to be achieving its goals. Although Acalanes certainly is not perfectly tolerant, the slew of tolerance workshops, diversity weeks and anti-hate regulations have gone a long way toward establishing a safe, pleasant and discrimination-free learning environment. Sadly, this has come at a high cost.

In attempts to create a climate of tolerance at Acalanes, we have promoted certain types of diversity at the expense of others, and in doing so, we have given up an essential component of education.

This commentary is not an attack on the promoters of tolerance. Their motives are noble, and the problems they address are real. Even at a liberal and accepting school such as Acalanes, intolerance deeply hurts many people. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination represent dangerous and highly undesirable tears in the moral fabric of any society (or any microcosm of society such as our high school).

Unfortunately, in the pursuit of a commendable goal, promoters have attempted to silence opposing viewpoints and done much to stifle reasonable debate. Too many students at Acalanes have made it clear that they will respect all forms of diversity - except diversity of belief. They will tolerate all people - except those who disagree with them.

The controversy surrounding Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage on the November ballot, illustrates this perfectly. The results of the Acalanes High School Votes project revealed that 20 percent of Acalanes students and faculty - roughly 280 individuals - supported Prop. 8. Only a few of these people, however, publicly expressed their views.

Although certainly not all of these individuals shared the activist zeal of the Gay Straight Alliance members, who plastered the school with No on 8 signs, there is no doubt that some refrained from stating their beliefs for the same reason that several school newspaper reporters agreed to write a Yes on 8 article only on condition of anonymity, lest they be branded as homophobes.

The writers were deterred not so much by the student planner’s threat that any language construed as hateful would be “disciplined to the fullest extent of school policy “ but by fear of social lynching by a rabidly “tolerant” faction of the student body.

Those who believe these fears are baseless should consider this anecdote: Before the election, a group of demonstrators held a Yes on Prop. 8 rally on a Highway 24 overpass. The fact that this group contained small children did not prevent a number of Acalanes students from screaming obscenities at them as the students traveled down the freeway. Some teenagers even drove onto the overpass to further verbally abuse the Prop. 8 supporters. It did not matter that these demonstrators had not said or displayed anything homophobic.

In our attempts to create a pleasant learning environment, we have veered from our drive for an educational environment in which beliefs are debated, assumptions questioned and original thoughts developed.

Dealing with challenges to one’s belief system is undeniably stimulating and educational. For instance, I personally am offended by the assertion that same-sex marriage is the first step on a road that leads to people marrying animals. But it is in arguing against that view I am forced to actually consider and articulate the difference. It forces me to defend and re-evaluate my beliefs, and leaves me a better informed person.

Those who claim to champion tolerance and diversity need to hold themselves to a higher standard. They need to remember they hold no monopoly on the truth, and that indoctrination is never better than the free flow of ideas. Ultimately, those who preach tolerance need to lead by example.

David McDiarmid is a student at Acalanes High School.

The Recorder newspaper in San Francisco reports that federal district courts in California, in apparent violation of First Amendment standards and the courts’ own rules, routinely sign off on on parties’ joint requests to seal records without requesting, or making findings concerning, the justification for cutting off public access. When both parties’ lawyers stipulate to the sealing, and no one is present to represent the interests of the press or public in open access, overworked judges readily acquiesce.-PS

The Recorder
By Dan Levine
November 20, 2008

As the first defendants in the nation to plead guilty to economic espionage charges, Ming Zhong and Fei Ye admitted they stole secrets from Silicon Valley companies and sought VC funding from the Chinese government.

The fact of their cooperation with American authorities has been no secret: It appeared in an unredacted portion of their plea agreements. Still, in preparation for sentencing Friday, Santa Cruz, Calif., solo Paul Meltzer asked Northern District of California Judge James Ware to seal Ye’s entire sentencing memo. Referring in a declaration to China’s economic espionage program, “press disclosure of the details contained in the sentencing memorandum concerning the 863 Program could expose Mr. Ye to reprisals,” Meltzer wrote.

Such sealing requests are fairly common and routinely granted, allowing no one but the parties to evaluate their merit. But for a few moments on Tuesday, Ye’s sentencing memo was publicly available on the court’s electronic docket. In the memo, Meltzer says his client provided “invaluable” information to the feds.

But the document doesn’t detail China’s program, contrary to what Meltzer wrote in his declaration. Regardless, Ware granted Meltzer’s motion Wednesday, with no objection from the government. Meltzer did not respond to messages.

Observers say the scenario highlights a practice on the court in which judges approve sealing orders in order to expedite the resolution of cases—regardless of governing case law or standard.

“As a practical matter, they’re not going to second-guess the sealing unless a third party makes an objection to it,” said Thomas Burke, a First Amendment lawyer at Davis Wright Tremaine, who represents newspapers. “You can talk about the legal standard, but the practical standard is what’s driving this one.”

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker acknowledged the general practice, saying it would take an “inordinate” amount of time for judges to analyze each sealing request and all the accompanying materials.

“My feeling is, defense lawyers and the government both seal more than they need to seal,” Walker said, “but when both sides are asking you to seal the document, and it’s a question of getting on with the plea or sentencing, the natural inclination is to accede to that request.”

Northern District local rules say a sealing request should be “narrowly tailored.”

“As a public forum, the Court has a policy of providing to the public full access to papers filed,” the rules say.

Six years ago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the feds to turn over to newspapers documents regarding a prisoner’s cooperation in In re McClatchy Newspapers, 288 F.3d 369. Moreover, in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, the 9th Circuit held in 2006 that in a civil context, courts must begin their analysis with a “strong presumption of access” for the public. Such disputes are much more common in civil cases, Burke said.

Judges often trust lawyers to make factual representations about what is in the secret material. “The whole system falls apart if declarations made in a bid for secrecy is not what is actually in the documents,” Burke said.

Zhong’s attorney, John Williams of Manchester, Williams & Seibert in San Jose, also moved to seal his sentencing memo, emphasizing that Zhong could be deported. It is not possible to know if Zhong’s sentencing memo contains the details about China’s 863 program that Ye’s lacked, because Zhong’s pleading didn’t become public.

Unlike Zhong, Ye is an American citizen, so Meltzer did not use the word deportation in his motion—only nonspecific language about reprisals. The cooperation section of Ye’s 10-page memo takes up only six lines.

“Fei Ye has been debriefed three times concerning all aspects of the program and has testified before the Federal Grand Jury in another matter,” Meltzer wrote. “Counsel has been advised that no one else has previously testified concerning the 863 project, and that this information is invaluable.”

Last spring, The Recorder reported Zhong and Ye appeared to have cooperated against two other engineers, who were subsequently indicted on economic espionage charges involving China. It is also possible that Zhong and Ye provided information to American intelligence services.

Like Meltzer, Williams did not return a call Wednesday.

Clearly the government valued Zhong and Ye’s cooperation: Though Assistant U.S. Attorney Kyle Waldinger calculated their guideline sentences in excess of three years on the low end, the government recommended only 12 months in prison. Waldinger filed a public sentencing memo, along with a sealed document discussing the cooperation.

The vast majority of Ye’s sentencing memo is standard fare, describing Ye’s remorse and intimate details about the hardships for his family should he go to prison. Meltzer asked that Ye be sentenced to electronic monitoring.

Ware is scheduled to hold the hearing Friday morning at 11:30.

Copyright the Recorder 2008

The Federal Register creates an “electronic public inspection desk” providing the public with direct online access to regulatory documents related to an array of subjects, including health, business and safety. Current postings, for example, relate to crib safety rules, airworthiness directives, and final FDIC rules on programs intended to soften the impact of the nation’s financial crisis.

PRESS RELEASE
Federal Register Announces Launch of New Electronic Public Inspection Desk

Last update: 1:46 p.m. EST Nov. 19, 2008
WASHINGTON, Nov 19, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/—Just in time for post-election regulatory flurry, access expands ‘Beyond the Beltway.’

The Office of the Federal Register has created an Electronic Public Inspection Desk to provide free worldwide electronic access to public documents. For the first time in the 72-year existence of the daily Federal Register, the documents on file are available for viewing anytime, anywhere. Every Federal business day, anyone with access to a computer now can read critical documents governing Federal regulations relating to business, health, and safety as soon as the documents are placed on file.

To view these documents, go to http://www.federalregister.gov. See “View Documents on Public Inspection” on the left hand side. This new desk grants the public access to documents that will be published in the next day’s Federal Register as early at 8:45 a.m. EST. Previously, such documents could only be seen by viewing the documents physically located at the Office of the Federal Register in Washington, D.C.
Citizens across the country no longer need depend upon representatives in Washington, D.C. to gain access to this material. The Electronic Public Inspection Desk has leveled the playing field in the competition for access to information. The dream of free access to government information that drove passage of the Federal Register Act and the Administrative Procedure Act has been realized.

This development is perfectly timed for the 2008 Presidential election. Traditionally, after an election the Federal Register experiences a large increase in regulations, and this year is no exception. Now, anyone, anywhere, can monitor this flurry of activity through the click of a mouse. The web site has been particularly useful in providing up-to-the minute access to Treasury Department and Federal Reserve regulations issued in response to the ongoing financial crisis. The newly released 2007 edition of the Privacy Act Issuances is also posted on the web site to provide citizens with broader access to provisions of law that protect personal privacy.
Background

For 72 years, the Office of the Federal Register has carried out its mandate to provide for public inspection of documents before publication in the daily Federal Register. Once a document goes on file at the Office of the Federal Register, the public at large is deemed to have legal notice of its contents. But as a practical matter, only a relative handful of Beltway insiders had the means to go to the physical location of the Office of the Federal Register in Washington, D.C. to monitor daily filings on behalf of their clients. Due to these technical, logistical, and financial restraints early access to valuable information was restricted to a select few. Until now.
SOURCE National Archives

http://www.archives.gov

A Prop. 8 proponent’s letter to the San Francisco Chronicle is met with intimidation and an “utter lack of respect for free speech,” the paper’s editorial page editor says:

The ugly backlash over Proposition 8
John Diaz
Sunday, November 23, 2008

A supporter of Proposition 8, fed up with what he believed was the gay community’s and “liberal media’s” refusal to accept the voters’ verdict, fired off a letter to the editor.

“Please show respect for democracy,” he wrote, in a letter we published.

What he encountered instead was an utter lack of respect for free speech.

Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his real name and city were listed - a condition for publication of letters to The Chronicle - opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find the letter writer’s small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children and dog), his phone number and his clients. And they posted that information in the “Comments” section of SFGate.com - urging, in ugly language, retribution against the author’s business and its identified clients.

“They’re intimidating people that don’t have the same beliefs as they do ... so they’ll be silenced,” he told me last week. “It doesn’t bode well for the free-speech process. People are going to have to be pretty damn courageous to speak up about anything. Why would anyone want to go through this?”

Let the record show that I absolutely disagree with the letter writer on the substance of Prop. 8. I believe that same-sex couples should have the full rights and responsibilities of marriage. In my view, the discrimination inherent in Prop. 8 is morally and legally indefensible in a society where the concept of equal protection is supposed to safeguard the rights of the minority.

But let me also say that I am disturbed by the vicious, highly personalized attacks against the letter writer and others. Protesters have shouted insults at people headed to worship; temples and churches have been defaced. “Blacklists” of donors who contributed to Yes on 8 are circulating on the Internet, and even small-time donors are being confronted. A Palo Alto dentist lost two patients as a result of his $1,000 donation. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned to spare the organization from a fast-developing boycott. Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the Sacramento theater group and a Mormon, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8.

This out-of-scale attempt to isolate and intimidate decidedly small players in the Yes on 8 campaign is no way to win the issue in a court of law or the court of public opinion.

Equally disappointing is the lack of a forceful denunciation from leaders of the honorable cause of bringing marriage equality to California. “We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not stand with us in this fight,” the No on 8 campaign reminded its coalition in a statement issued after the election.

Guess what? Certain advocates of the cause are alienating people - and this approach needs to be called out. Remember, the No on 8 campaign was shouting “blackmail!” at the top of its lungs when the Yes side sent certified letters to major donors threatening to “out” them in a press release unless they also contributed to the marriage ban. Of course, that “threat” had a tinge of absurdity. Corporations such as PG&E, McDonald’s and Levi Strauss were not afraid of being “outed” for their association with the marriage-equality cause. They were well aware that their major donations amounted to a public statement that might cause them to lose - and gain - customer goodwill.

Opponents of same-sex marriage should not be let off the hook for their post-election tactics. There is already talk of a recall campaign against California Supreme Court justices if they overturn Prop. 8, reminiscent of the unsuccessful attempt to oust Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Ming Chin after they voted to overturn a law that required parental consent for minors to receive an abortion. The judiciary must not be intimidated in this nation of laws.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, the San Francisco Democrat who wrote a marriage-equality bill that passed both houses and was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said he does not “defend or rationalize” overzealous tactics by those on his side. He noted that tumult and emotion have historically defined moments of momentous social change. “This is a visceral reaction to the fact that, for the first time in U.S. history, a recognized constitutional right was repealed by a simple majority vote,” Leno said.

Time is on the side of marriage equality. Sixty-one percent of voters younger than 30 opposed Prop. 8, while 61 percent of those older than 65 supported it. Attitudes are changing and will continue to shift as more and more Americans see that extending the right to same-sex couples is not a threat to traditional marriage, but an affirmation of its value to society.

Intimidation, through attempts to chill free speech or an independent judiciary, should have no part in this debate. The leaders on both sides should have the honesty to recognize it within their camps - and the courage to condemn it.

In “Secrecy News,” the Federation of American Scientists reports that outgoing federal officials have been put on notice that classified information belongs to the government, not them:

Don’t Remove Gov’t Records, Departing Officials Are Told

Government officials were reminded recently that as they depart from government service with the end of the current Administration, they are not permitted to take classified information with them.

“Classified information is not personal property and may not be removed from the Government’s control by any departing official or employee. This includes ‘extra’copies.”

That timely warning was issued by William J. Bosanko, the director of the Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees the national security classification system.

“This prohibition applies to all cleared officials and employees, regardless of type or level of position,” Mr. Bosanko wrote in a November 17 ISOO memorandum to senior executive branch agency officials.

Document removal is among the most pernicious forms of secrecy, as it is often undetected and irreversible.

Twenty-five organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, offer a 20-chapter set of policy recommendations for the new Congress and the Obama administration. The document urges increased government transparency and restraint in secrecy classifications. It also addresses reforms of the State Secrets privilege, updates to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and limits on NSA spying. Read the announcement here. 

A sexual assault on a middle school student that resulted in the arrest of two schoolmates and campus workshops on sexual harassment prevention didn’t warrant notification of all parents, a spokesman told KCBS radio and the Vallejo Times Herald. (Listen to the KCBS report here.)

VCUSD kept mum after assault on girl
By TONY BURCHYNS/Times-Herald staff writer
Posted: 11/18/2008 02:03:32 AM PST

Vallejo school district officials say not telling parents about a sexual assault was the right thing to do, although the news broke on TV last Friday.

The attack happened about three weeks ago. A female Vallejo Middle School student allegedly was forced to perform oral sex on a male student in broad daylight, Vallejo City Unified School District spokesman Jason Hodge said Monday.

The attack occurred after school and apparently was witnessed by students. But the district opted not to notify parents, even after two students were later arrested and face expulsion and felony charges.

“We didn’t feel like other students were in danger,” Hodge said. “It was an isolated incident that didn’t jeopardize the health and safety of any other students. And we’re standing by that.”

Additionally, Hodge said administrators had protected the victim’s privacy by not publicizing the incident.

He also said the attack happened off campus, although the tennis courts are part of the Vallejo High campus.

School district officials said they are addressing the issue of sexual harassment through assemblies. But it was unclear Monday whether many students knew a fellow student had been sexually assaulted.

Three students standing outside the school said Monday they recalled hearing someone had been arrested, but knew nothing of the incident.

CBS reported that parents were “outraged” by the lack of notification. But only one parent had been interviewed, and Hodge said the superintendent’s office had not received any criticism or complaints over its handling of the issue.