San Angelo City Accused of Censorship, Blogger of Bias

If San Angelo were South Park, then five to 10 middle-aged males running around in plaid button-downs and trucker hats would have been yelling, “You took our rights!” with a heavy Texas twang on Tuesday of last week.

Instead, a few irritated residents took to the podium in McNease Convention Center before a bickering Council, and roughly stated that this First Amendment nonsense is of no interest to the public and should be left off the agenda.

“Frankly, I feel a little badly that this is being discussed when there are so many more important things to be discussed,” said City Public Information Officer Anthony Wilson in an interview Wednesday, a statement that sums up last Tuesday’s public sentiment.

But the real issue is whether or not the City of San Angelo has in fact stepped upon the peoples' First Amendment rights.

It all dates back a month or so ago when Kat Rowoldt of Christian Reporter News broke the story of councilwoman Charlotte Farmer’s memorandum on the alleged West Texas Water scandal, and posted the infamous grapes videos.

Apparently, Rowoldt had been on the City’s radar almost since she started reporting on Council meetings in July. With her own website bearing “Reporter News” in the title, and a first-person writing style typical of personal blogs, categorization became a problem for Kat, and the City was ready to solve it.

“There’s a website here in town that has been reporting on city council meetings,” said Wilson. “We have offered several times to provide information and interviews. We have not been taken up on that offer.”

The interviews offered were ones with City officials, managers and council members, with the purpose of aiding Rowoldt to publish both objective and well-informed articles. The practice is one of legitimate news media, who are bound by the ethics of integrity and unbiased reporting.

“Initially, we had believed that this website was in fact going to be reporting the news as opposed to simply just commenting on the news,” Wilson continued. “When it became clear to us…that it was going to be more of commentary…we viewed that website more in the line of a blog as opposed to news media.”

With her work was no longer deemed journalistic, Rowoldt found herself removed from the City’s email list for press release distribution. The reason for Rowoldt’s removal was stated as her lack of objectivity and her status as a blogger.

“As a practice, we have not sent press releases to bloggers the way that we send it to news media…[because of this,] we stopped sending press releases to that website,” Wilson said.

Interestingly, Rowoldt says she’s not running a blog. Given the option between the classifications of blog and news source for her website on Thursday, Rowoldt responded, “news.” Further comment was not available due to Rowoldt’s recovery from a recent surgery.

Rowoldt’s removal from the list prompted councilwoman Farmer to add an item to last Tuesday’s agenda concerning the dissemination of press releases to media and the public.

“I didn’t want the city to be a part of deciding professions out there or even the slightest hint of messing around with the First Amendment,” Farmer said in an interview Wednesday.

Indeed, deciding the legitimacy of professions and what the First Amendment extends to became the topic of discussion for several minutes, as Farmer opened the discussion by asking council members, ‘What’s the difference between a blogger and a media person?’

According to Wikipedia, Journalism is:

“a method of inquiry and literary style used in social and cultural representation. It serves the purpose of playing the role of a public service machinery in the dissemination and analysis of news and information. Journalistic integrity is based on the principles of truth, accuracy and factual knowledge.”

A blogger, on the other hand was loosely described as one who writes a diary online. The question, however, was not one of defining the two—which proved quite difficult and only led to speculative discussion—but rather, whether it is the place of City Government to make those distinctions.

On this subject, most could agree it is not. Councilman Winkie Wardlaw and Farmer then further addressed the concern that Rowoldt’s rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press had been violated by not providing her the releases other news agencies receive.

“All of our press releases are posted on our website, and our Facebook page, and our Twitter page, so it’s not as if those documents are hard to access,” Wilson said.

Wilson maintains that his choice to remove Rowoldt from the list was not intended to suppress her rights, although others have noted that the necessity to look for information regularly when others receive it freely may be seen as putting a hurdle in the middle of her track.

“I don’t think the city should be in the business of retaliation or deciding who gets press releases and who doesn’t,” Farmer said.

Farmer, as well as other bloggers in town, have responded to the situation in chorus.

“In my opinion, I think they present a point of view that maybe we’re not seeing,” Farmer said, stating that she finds every source of reporting on city matters integral to her job of representing San Angelo on the City Council.

Following a brief telephone interview, the author of the StateOfTheDivision blog, who prefers anonymity, articulated his thoughts on the matter:

I don't buy this "talk to all parties and report their positions" meme. There is a clear role for people with depth of knowledge on issues to state what they know, understand and believe.  In many cases they are the only ones who can break the story, i.e. call "horse hockey" on misrepresentations and incomplete facts.

I've heard a number of city leaders refer to bloggers as "opinion only." That's their prerogative. The public can judge where they find more information on an issue, presentations from paid city leaders or researched pieces by bloggers with knowledge.

I don't have a "press release" dog in this fight, but find odd the characterization of bloggers as "opinion only."  Citizens that wish to be heard have an avenue for knowledge sharing and expression, albeit one that takes considerable time and energy.  Readers have a choice.  I expect them to go where things make the most sense.  If that's something I've written, I'm honored.  If it's another local blogger, I take solace in that.  I'm lucky to be able to write, period.

Even Wikipedia jumped on the other-perspective bandwagon, and further down in the entry for journalism, states:

“…Meanwhile, easy access to news from a variety of online sources, like blogs and other social media, has resulted in readers being able to pick from a wider choice of official and unofficial sources, instead of only from the agenda-driven traditional media organisations.”

In the interest of better serving the public, Rowoldt has been re-added to the distribution list. The decision was made by Wilson and City Manager Daniel Valenzuela following the City Council meeting last week.

“…In retrospect, I’m in the business of public information and we want the public to receive as much of the information as possible,” Wilson said.

Joe Hyde, my boss and the publisher of San Angelo LIVE! agrees with Wilson's tact in the aftermath of the issue, however emphasizes the need to objectively view the media from a PR standpoint.  

"If you're in the public information business in 2013, all press is good press. Even when it's bad," he said."Rather than judge bad or good press, look at public relations in the Google world."

Hyde added that as a media entity, he empathizes with Wilson on account of the quality of content Wilson strives to deliver to the community, as well as his dedication to build channels of information for all those seeking it.  

Rowoldt was left off the list for approximately three to four weeks before being put back on with other local news organizations. Her name now appears at the top of the email list.

The First Amendment was saved, at least at the City of San Angelo.