Justice Kennedy insisted student newspaper let his office OK story
The New York Times reports that Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy recently insisted that the student newspaper at Dalton High School in Manhattan allow his office to read an article about a speech he gave before it could be published.
Most professional newspapers would have said “No thanks.”
As a rule, newspapers don’t allow sources to preview articles before publication. In fact, like many newspapers, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s ethics policy prohibits the practice: “Decisions about what to run will be made by the Post-Dispatch, and others are never given authority to make changes.” The policy allows for parts of stories — quotes, for instance — to be run by sources to ensure accuracy.
The Times reports:
Kathleen Arberg, the court’s public information officer, said Justice Kennedy’s office had made the request to make sure the quotations attributed to him were accurate.
The justice’s office received a draft of the proposed article on Monday and returned it to the newspaper the same day with “a couple of minor tweaks,” Ms. Arberg said. Quotations were “tidied up” to better reflect the meaning the justice had intended to convey, she said.
Ms. Arberg indicated that what had happened at Dalton was unusual. “Justice Kennedy does not have a general policy for making such requests,” she said. “The request was most likely made by a member of his staff in an effort to be helpful.” Justice Kennedy declined a request for an interview.
Ellen Stein, Dalton’s head of school, defended the practice in a telephone interview. “This allows student publications to be correct,” she said. “I think fact checking is a good thing.”
The Times article notes that Kennedy is “widely regarded as one of the court’s most vigilant defenders of First Amendment values,” and that Supreme Court Justices often bar the press outright from covering their public appearances.
Frank D. LoMonte — who recently weighed in on press rights and Timberland High School here — offers his opinion on the Dalton case. LoMonte is the executive director of the Student Press Law Center. The Times quotes him:
“Obviously, in the professional world, it would be a nonstarter if a source demanded prior approval of coverage of a speech,” he said. Even at a high school publication, Mr. LoMonte said, the request for prepublication review sent the wrong message and failed to appreciate the sophistication of high school seniors.
“These are people who are old enough to vote,” he said. “If you’re old enough to drive a tank, you’re old enough to write a headline.”
Steve Parker is the deputy managing editor for news, and oversees the Post-Dispatch's front page. STLtoday's online news editors are on his newsroom team. Parker has been at the paper since September 1980. 
Was the prior approval granted as a condition for an interview or the speech?
If so, then the acceptance of that condition is when the commitment to free speech was violated.
The Post-Dispatch has an ethics policy?
I think that kind of fact-checking is absolutely a good idea. Ensuring accuracy is not a violation of the First Amendment, lol! I’m just a regular citizen and not a public figure, but I have been badly misquoted in the local paper before, and consequently I don’t think I’d ever talk to a reporter again.
Nothing like freedom of the press being upheld by a justice who postures as being a staunch defender of it. This request was insulting. Next time Kennedy writes a majority/minority opinion, the press should be given the right to `tidy’ it up before the court goes public with it. After all, Kennedy’s not a writer — he’s a lawyer.
You were “badly misquoted” or you thought better of what you said after it appeared in the paper? Letting someone read a story after its been written isn’t “fact checking,” it’s letting the person dictate what goes and what stays in the article. Sometimes people regret what they say in public or to a reporter. That doesn’t make it wrong. It means the person should maybe think before they speak.
I see no mention of what exactly was to be the consequence if his demand wasn’t met, or when the agreement was reached. If the agreement was a precondition of the student reporter being specially admitted to the venue where the speech was made, I see no violation; I know of no constitutional mandate that reporters must be allowed to any private location where an event in which they are interested may be occurring. Even after the speech, if his office called and made an aggressive plea to be permitted to review the article, there’s no major offense; it could be considered a good lesson in how to exercise editorial judgment in the face of powerful subjects. The only way I can see a problem with the exchange is if there was some threat to the school or paper if the request for editorial review wasn’t granted; this blog doesn’t note whether or not such a threat was made, and the fact that the school administration didn’t seem terribly worried about it suggests to me that there was no threat.
Journalists have every right to get offended by whatever they see fit, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the cause of their offense is threatening to our way of life.
When I say “badly misquoted,” I mean that I was badly misquoted….not that I changed my mind, or didn’t like the way I sounded, or anything like that. I was just plain misquoted. This was not surprising, because the article contained other glaring inaccuracies that basic fact-checking would have spotted. It was poor reporting. I don’t blame anyone who expects accuracy in reporting.
As for the Justice Kennedy issue, the author of this blog should check out Justice Scalia’s POV on press attendance at his events.
538EV… Believe me, there are times when people will claim they’ve been misquoted by a reporter after they see in print what they actually DID say. Sometimes people say something while they’re on mental cruise control, not considering how it will look in print. As a newspaper reporter, this happened to me a few times. I once interviewed a man who criticized his local police department. After he saw in print what he said, he backtracked, and claimed to the police chief he was misquoted. I know what happened: he started thinking he might get harrassed by police for what he said. The easiest way out was to claim he was misquoted.
I believe people who don’t normally deal with the media should be treated differently than someone who normally does, say a police chief or politician. When I dealt with the average person, I’d ask up front if I could interview them for the article I was writing. Also, I’d make it apparent I was opening my notebook to take notes. Conversely, someone like a politician doesn’t deserve such preferential treatment. They should know anything they say to a reporter could wind up in print. A reporter shouldn’t have to tie their shoelaces for them. The only exception is when both sides agree something is off-the-record.