Recently, several members of the Optic newsroom staff went over a host of government-police-type articles that appeared in the state’s newspapers. It was amazing how many times those mentioned in the articles refused comment. Either police failed to identify the suspect or, more commonly, some school or civic or state spokesperson remained mum.
     Commonly we read, “On the advice of my attorney, I have no comment,” or “I can’t comment because the case is under investigation.”

     Because news is “hot,” sometimes tomorrow is too late. Notice how many times the Albuquerque television channels gloss over a story, leaving it totally devoid of identification, this way: “The three victims were taken to area hospitals, and police have filed charges against a 24-year-old man suspected of drunken driving.”
     My concern is how ANY news ever gets produced in light of the amount of stonewalling. Or, in the case of flabby, superficial reporting, it is amazing how many organizations are content to merely cover the surface. The name of the suspect, which officials promise to release the next day, seldom gets revealed. And by that time, it’s no longer news.
     But I’m not going to extol the power of the press or portray its role as that of a white knight saving vestal virgins from the dark lusts of the Bush administration. I’m simply pointing out how tough a reporter’s job is.
     For example, four years ago, a 7-year-old Santa Fe boy disappeared. His mother’s frantic call to police went way below the radar in regard to importance, and any hope of a quick search was lost. The boy has not been seen since. To be sure, there have been repercussions: the family of the boy has filed a suit, and the deskman on duty that night has been removed.
     The boy’s mother tried for closure and sought to take a close look at the status of the investigation but was denied access. Why? Well, it might jeopardize the investigation. More likely, releasing the information to the grieving parents might expose sloppy police work.
     In another case, a member of the C.I.A. was scheduled to deliver a speech at Eastern New Mexico University. Publicists posted notices around campus and even had an announcement published in the local newspaper. But, when it became known that the press intended to cover the speech, it got cancelled. Another example: Earlier this year, a Texas-based representative of Head Start arrived in Las Vegas to discuss concerns of a number of local citizens over the local Head Start. When the representative discovered that an area newspaper reporter was in attendance, she refused to meet with the group until the reporter left.
     And on a larger scale, heads rolled when photos became generally available showing rows and rows of coffins of U.S. military personnel who had died in Iraq. The government’s official stance was that showing the coffins would be “disrespectful to the families of the victims.” But more likely, such honesty and openness would serve more to expose the horrors of war. Regarding the war in Iraq, I applauded when I saw a New Mexico soldier included in Ted Koppel’s landmark “Nightline” program, in which he read several hundred names. Fortunately, like-minded viewers in New Mexico got to see the telecast, despite governmental concerns that such an airing may “hurt the war effort.”
     Most people assume the press has special powers, but the Constitution gives no special privileges to the media. Joining the press corps doesn’t require certifications or degrees, and there are no licenses to obtain or dues to pay. An errant reporter doesn’t somehow get drummed out of the association; the media organization generally makes these decisions. The news reporter’s success comes as a result of asking a lot of questions, working hard and being persistent.
     Despite the best efforts of the press, the result of government stonewalling is that stories are often weak. Secrecy usually serves only to prevent embarrassment to the government. Human beings are naturally inclined to protect themselves, and working for the government does not eliminate self-interest or self-protection.
     It is difficult to know when government secrecy is legitimate, but when it isn’t, it doesn’t serve the public interest. The public is consistent in its interest in government activities, but the government isn’t always forthcoming. This is unfortunate, because after all, public business is the public’s business. Rumor and speculation are all we’re left with when news sources say no more than “no comment.”