Censorship, I think not…

Censorship is one the most often heard (and irresponsible) charges from the media. Opinion satirist Maureen Dowd was apparently kicked off (barred) the McCain plane for her and her paper the New York Times coverage of John McCain. This legal since the federal open media law is not applicable to access to campaign planes do not qualify under statutes. The first amendment protections are not taken away from Ms. Dowd and New York Times by the McCain camp refusing access to the press plane. "We are first amendment absolutists on this campaign and the press and everyone who wishes to cover this race from a blogosphere and media perspective is constitutionally protected to write whatever they want," said Steve Schmidt, the campaign's chief strategist http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/mccain-camp-goes-to-war-w_n_128297.html. Access is a privilege (media pass campaigns for space on planes) not a right, and it is obvious that the New York continues to exercise their rights with stories about the McCain Campaign. Do I think this is petty, yes? Do I think the New York Times has a bias, yes, but that is my opinion. If you are running a campaign, you are going to run into bias; it is your responsibility to get your message out. When campaigns take this type of action; it as a sign of weakness (mostly). No, they are not violating the first amendment or Sunshine laws; they are highlighting weakness. For the record, Maureen Dowd, like Helen Thomas are Op-Ed writers; not reporters. It does a disservice to the truth to treat them as reporters. Lastly, NY times has fallen along way in journalistic standards since 9/11, but again that is an opinion. Opinions should be challenged and held to account; not run from. Again, there has been no breaking of Media Communications Law.