The Weakley County Examiner

Shannon Taylor

CEO/Publisher

Public institutions operate with taxpayer funding, and citizens expect transparency when decisions are made or money is spent. Yet many journalists find themselves facing silence when requesting information or comment. This silence raises questions about public access, press freedoms, and accountability.

Journalism exists to serve as a watchdog, holding power to account, not sitting obediently as a lapdog repeating only the information officials are comfortable sharing. When public agencies refuse to respond to questions, they tilt toward the latter. Communities lose when information is filtered to fit what leaders want, not what citizens deserve.

Legally, government bodies are not required to grant interviews or answer press questions. But they cannot discriminate against individual reporters based on coverage. In Tennessee, if a public institution chooses to issue press releases, it cannot lawfully exclude certain reporters or outlets simply because it dislikes their reporting.

In practice, some institutions have attempted to sidestep this by posting all press releases on their websites or Facebook pages instead of distributing them directly. While this makes the information technically available to everyone, it avoids acknowledging the underlying issue of selective distribution. Courts have made clear that viewpoint discrimination by government bodies, even in seemingly minor forms, is unconstitutional.

Recent Tennessee experience shows how selective distribution can chill reporting. In Memphis, the editor of MLK50 said the city removed her outlet from its media advisory list after critical coverage. According to the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, the practice was alleged to be viewpoint discrimination that violated constitutional protections for the press. The dispute underscores that when government curates access based on content, it steps over the line from communications management into unconstitutional favoritism.

Even if questions go unanswered, institutions cannot sidestep transparency in spending. The Tennessee Public Records Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503) requires agencies to respond within seven business days to requests for documents. Settlement agreements funded by taxpayers are public records. Courts have ruled consistently that secrecy cannot shield how public money is spent.

In a 2022 case, a Davidson County court ordered the Governor’s Office to release COVID-response consulting records after rejecting a broad “deliberative process” claim, underscoring that agencies cannot invent privileges to avoid the Public Records Act.

Reporters have remedies:

• Document outreach and responses.
• File formal public records requests.
• State plainly in coverage that comment was sought and denied.
• Seek context from public filings, meeting minutes, and outside experts.

As Justice Hugo Black wrote, “The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.” That principle underscores why withholding direct access to press releases is not simply unprofessional. It is potentially unconstitutional.

• Public Records Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503): Agencies must respond to records requests within seven business days. They cannot deny access based on who is asking.
• Open Meetings Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-44-101 et seq.): All public meetings must be open to citizens and the press. Blocking access is unlawful.
• First Amendment: Once a government distributes press releases, it cannot exclude certain reporters for critical coverage. That is viewpoint discrimination.
• Consequences for Violations: Courts may order disclosure, nullify meeting actions, or award attorney’s fees when institutions act unlawfully.

Not every access dispute will produce a win for the press. When a news outlet sought to cover the Tennessee Judicial Conference, a federal judge declined emergency relief and later dismissed the case, finding no First Amendment right to attend that particular meeting. The ruling does not bless viewpoint-based exclusions, but it shows courts distinguish between forums that must remain open and specialized gatherings that may be closed under defined policies.

When a public institution tries to blacklist a reporter, it is not just bad manners. It is a threat to transparency and accountability.

Officials do not have to answer every question, but they cannot pick and choose which reporters get information based on whether they like the coverage. That is viewpoint discrimination, and under the First Amendment, it is unconstitutional.

In Tennessee, the Public Records Act guarantees access to government records for all citizens, not just favored reporters. The Open Meetings Act requires that public meetings remain open. Posting releases on Facebook may look like transparency, but if the real goal is to shut out watchdog journalists, it crosses the line.

The consequences are real:

• Courts can order disclosure of withheld records.
• Agencies can be forced to pay attorney’s fees.
• Decisions made in closed or discriminatory settings can be thrown out.

In July 2025, a Tennessee court found Chattanooga’s City Council repeatedly violated the Open Meetings Act during redistricting. The court’s ruling, obtained with support from press-freedom advocates, reinforces that when officials shut the public out of required proceedings, courts will step in and unwind secrecy.

Blacklisting reporters does not silence the press. It exposes public institutions to legal risk, and more importantly, it tells the public exactly what their leaders are afraid to answer.

Tennessee’s Open Meetings Act, adopted in the 1970s, was born from public frustration with secretive government practices. Lawmakers intended to make secrecy the rare exception and openness the default. That legacy remains in force today, but only if it is enforced by courts, citizens, and journalists.

“Government agencies cannot cherry-pick which reporters get access. That kind of discrimination undermines public trust,” said Deborah Fisher, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has also stressed that retaliation against specific outlets is more than unprofessional. It is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination that erodes democracy at its core.

Any Tennessean can file a public records request. Forms and instructions are available through the Tennessee Comptroller’s Office and the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government. If you suspect an Open Meetings Act violation, you can raise it with your local District Attorney or with the state Attorney General’s Office.

Transparency is not just a press issue. It belongs to every citizen who deserves to know how tax dollars are spent, why decisions are made, and whether leaders are acting in the public’s best interest.

Supporting high-quality local journalism takes community commitment. If you value in-depth reporting on events like these, please consider donating to The Weakley County Examiner. Your contribution helps us continue to cover the stories that matter most to our region.