US Senate revokes press credential of SCOTUSblog because, old men

The rather renowned Supreme Court blog SCOTUSblog had its US Senate press credentials revoked recently, while the Supreme Court refuses to credential SCOTUSblog at all.

Why? Because SCOTUSblog is run by a law firm that argues before the Court. Thus, the Senate press credentialing folks think SCOTUSblog has a conflict of interest. Unlike every other press venture in America, and the world, that is owned by major corporations with interests before the Congress and the Supreme Court.

That’s not to say that the Senate press credentialing committee, made up of a bunch of reporters, doesn’t have a legitimate concern. I had no idea that SCOTUSblog was run by a law firm that argues before the Supreme Court. How does SCOTUSblog cover its own firm’s clients? Its own boss’ arguments before the court?

Photo by ©John Aravosis.

Supreme Court photo by ©John Aravosis.

Then again, how does Fox News cover Republicans? Or Justice Scalia? With a softer touch than it gives Democrats or Justice Kagan, one presumes.

Is Fox any less biased than SCOTUSblog? On the contrary, say what you will about SCOTUSblog’s ownership, its coverage of the court has been impeccable. Fox News’ coverage of Washington has been less exemplary.

Again, I get the concern about bias and conflicts of interest. And a blog that covers a court that it argues on behalf of paid clients before is a clear potential conflict. Could, would, SCOTUSblog ever feel the temptation to go softer on a justice that the firm’s owner needed on his side in a future case?  Could the blog be tempted to craft its analysis in a way intended to woo a justice on behalf of a future client?  Maybe.  But again, we’ve yet to see any indication of bias by SCOTUSblog so far — in fact, the publication has had a stellar record of impeccable quality journalism unparalled on the Web.

And, we see bias every day from other publications that are credentialed before the court, be they Fox News at the extreme, MSNBC, or even the progressive Huffington Post.

While I get the Senate press credentialing folks’ concern, and I get that they worry about the precedent this might set, at the same time it all feels very 2004. That was an era in which blogging was the wild west of journalism, and no one knew if those kids in their pajamas would ever grow up to become real journalists.

Well, the kids grew up years ago. And the fact that the Senate revoked SCOTUSblog’s credentials once — and not, apparently, because SCOTUSblog showed any bias or conflict in their reporting — means that if there’s a problem in the future, the Senate could do it again, if needed. So why sweat it now?

NOTE FROM JOHN: We need your help sharing our content on social media — most folks think it doesn’t matter, but it’s the difference between keeping the site alive or not. When you share our stories, you help bring us visitors, which increases our ad revenue and helps to keep this site afloat. Thanks for your help. JOHN

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

26 Responses to “US Senate revokes press credential of SCOTUSblog because, old men”

  1. simoneshelly says:

    Peyton . true that Jessica `s blurb is shocking, last
    monday I got a gorgeous Peugeot 205 GTi after having earned $6860 this past 4
    weeks an would you believe ten-k this past-month . with-out a doubt this is the
    easiest-job I’ve ever had . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much
    immediately started to bring in minimum $84… p/h . Read More Here F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  2. basiliusydx493 says:

    my buddy’s half-sister makes
    $69 /hour on the internet . She has been laid off for six months but last month
    her payment was $17735 just working on the internet for a few hours. check my
    source F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  3. SteffGibbonsrae says:

    as Thelma explained I cannot
    believe that a stay at home mom can make $7420 in four weeks on the internet .
    more info here R­e­x­1­0­.­C­O­M­

  4. LosGatosCA says:

    Ethics panel needed.

    Herr Doctor Roger ‘Goebbels’ Ailes please pick up the white courtesy phone.

  5. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    It seems strange to say this, but that was fun.

  6. BeccaM says:

    No, they can’t pick who can and cannot do the job of being a journalist…but they can control who is allowed into the rooms and the buildings. Hence press credentials. Congress, the Supreme Court, the Executive branch — they’ve been playing favorites as to who is allowed into the buildings and whose questions will be answered for as long as the U.S. has existed as a nation.

    The far more disturbing outcome is when they DO try to to declare whether someone is a journalist or not, and thus eligible for First Amendment protections in a global sense. But that’s a whole different matter.

  7. BeccaM says:

    aka his real name, Jim Guckert.

  8. Mark_in_MN says:

    That’s just it. I don’t think they should be responding on the basis of circulation or viewership.

  9. perljammer says:

    Well, you can call or write your representative, but with your rather limited circulation, you probably won’t get much attention.

  10. Mark_in_MN says:

    On this I very much agree. I think that’s what’s going on here. They are protecting he turf of the “traditional” media and their special access privileges.

  11. Bill Larson says:

    This also gives these organizations too much control over the process and they have an interest in excluding what is basically reputable competitors

  12. Mark_in_MN says:

    Or maybe there shouldn’t be a group of people who have special access to Senate, House, SCOTUS or White House. Why should a star reporter get to ask questions but not someone like John or an average citizen like you or I?

  13. Mark_in_MN says:

    In this case it’s not the government, other than the Senate sanctions the committee to make policies and decisions on credentialing. The credentials committee is run by the press association for the Senate. That is, it’s representatives of the reporters, photographers, etc. who are already credentialed that form the committee.

  14. Mark_in_MN says:

    I don’t get the Senate press people’s concern. SCOTUSblog gives more reputable and complete coverage of matters pertaining to SCOTUS than most of the “traditional” media that the Senate press credentials people represent.

    I really think that the claim of a possible conflict of interest is a good sounding excuse. The real reason is an attempt to shore up the “traditional” media and cut down a blog that might actually do a better job than than do. I think it’s about petty turf protection.

  15. Bill Larson says:

    Freedom of the press under the 1st amendment does not give the government any rights to identify or define what is, or is not press.

  16. perljammer says:

    Really? So the whole idea of requiring a press credential to gain access to Senate or SCOTUS or White House press briefings is unconstitutional? Maybe you think every journalist in the country (or why not the whole world?) should have unfettered access at any time?

    The First Amendment constrains Congress from making any laws impinging on the freedom of the press. That doesn’t mean Federal bodies can’t make rules concerning the granting of press credentials.

  17. pappyvet says:

    Thanks Mike , I was not aware of that.

  18. Yep, Jeffy boy :)

  19. nicho says:

    I agree, but then I didn’t think the US could torture people, execute American citizens without charges or trial, or go to war with a country that posed no threat to us. Shows you what I know.

  20. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I’m certain John remembers. He really went after Gannon.

  21. Indigo says:

    See there? You’re not supposed to rock the boat, it’s in the Bible about that, somewhere . . . probably.

  22. Drew2u says:

    Tangential Q: Has, or Is anyone working on a book describing the failure of the 4th estate as a fact-checking, journalistic institute and not just a sensationalistic stenographic institute chasing the almighty ratings? Threats or actions against the 4th estate such as this development, could be part of the overall narrative of access vs truth (sort of like the HRC’s activism vs. dinner parties).

  23. ComradeRutherford says:

    The Senate and SCOTUS banned the blog because they are not allowed – yet – to do what Egypt just did: sentence journalists to seven years in prison for reporting truthfully.

  24. pappyvet says:

    I think I just answered my own question.
    I think it an outrage to deny SCOTUSblog press credentials when this was allowed to go on at the White House.

  25. pappyvet says:

    John do you remember that rabid wingnut that was allowed to attend Bushes press conferences for no other reason than to throw knives at Liberals. I do wonder what stouthearted publication he was associated with. I recall the fellow but not much else.

  26. caphillprof says:

    I do not think the Senate, under the First Amendment, can pick and choose journalists, either directly or through a committee of “supposed” journalists. Same for the Supreme Court.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS