| "With all due respect": Email comments from Star-Bulletin reporter Crystal Kua to House majority spokesperson Georgette Deemer regarding new access restrictions
[These comments are printed in full, and used without express permission after being widely circulated within the State Capitol.] |
| From: Crystal Kua <ckua@starbulletin.com> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:04:07 -1000 Subject: Re: Press Box Decision Georgette, I have resisted the temptation of stepping into this discussion so far because technically I cover City Hall but because I fill in for Richard and B.J. when they are not around and because I will be filling in for B.J. the last week of session, I feel I have a right to speak my mind on the subject. Here's my "feedback". Some of my history when it comes to this issue ... This is my seventh session working here at the Capitol -- half of that time has been as one of three Star-Bulletin reporters covering the Legislature -- and during those seven years I have watched the following erosion of media access on the House side: -- The loss of the the other press box has forced all the media to squeeze into one press box especially during big events like opening day or the state of the state when lots of media reps. are here. These boxes were designed specifically for the press because originally there was a room for the radio and TV. And before House staff took over the other box, the Advertiser was there and Star-Bulletin and AP were in the box that everyone is now squeezed into. Now, my job is made much tougher because the Star-Bulletin's main competitor and others are in the same box. In the "old days" I'd be able to talk to house members or my editors or whomever about a story I'm working on away from the ears of my competitor. Now that's impossible to do and it greatly obstructs my ability to carry out my duties. -- The banning of the media from talking to members on the House floor at the end of session in the name of security even though you all allow countless numbers of potential strangers on to the House floor during floor presentations, speeches and other events. We vehemently objected to the ban and I remember getting into a heated discussion with both Kevin Kuroda and Alex McGee at the time because the ban was aimed solely at the media. Here again our job was made a lot tougher because getting to House members is made all the more difficult especially when session is the only time you can get to ask questions of some of these public officials -- and I emphasize the word "public", not private. What you are proposing is a bad idea. As far as I'm concerned, having Danielle AND you in the press box with me greatly impedes my ability to do my job. With all due respect, I don't want you all listening in on any of my conversations that potentially could lead to a story. To me, that's prior restraint. It's akin to me sitting in your office when you are trying to do your job. I don't understand why you all can fit dozens of people on the floor when it's time for a floor presentation or a big event but can't find two chairs for you and Danielle on the floor. We were told when we were banned from the floor that the floor would be for members and staff. This is not merely a matter of figuring out where people will stand and sit in the back of the press box. It goes much deeper than that because of the pattern that the House has exhibited in recent years in closing off access to the media. I also disagree with you that the "majority" of those who use the box have no problem with your idea. Counting Richard, B.J., Treena and me -- that's four of the seven reporters based here at the Capitol who have a problem with what you are planning. Can you specify what YOU mean by feedback from the "majority"? I get a little ruffled when it comes to access issues because I believe when it comes to upholding our First Amendment duty, I -- and my colleagues -- take it very seriously. I also agree with my colleagues that the Senate is more media-friendly I sincerely hope you reconsider your position. |