Utah lawmakers need a refresher on the U.S. Constitution’s protections for freedom of press.
Lesson number one: Freelance journalists are journalists.
It’s a principle that dates back to our country’s earliest days. The founders recognized that freedom of the press included not just newspapers and books, but also the pamphlets published by individuals that fueled the American independence movement.
For almost as long, American journalists have been covering statehouses. But the number of statehouse reporters has shrunk over the last three decades. Thankfully, local nonprofits, newsletters and podcasts — all of which often rely on freelancers or even a single independent journalist — are filling the gap.
So why did the Utah Legislature recently change its press credential rules to exclude “blogs, independent, or other freelance journalists?”
According to a new lawsuit filed by the Institute for Free Speech on behalf of longtime Utah journalist Bryan Schott and news outlet Utah Political Watch, it may be about revenge. The state denies retaliatory motives in a recent court filing, but cites no credible alternative reasons for disfavoring and delegitimizing independent journalism.
In previous years, the Legislature allowed “[b]loggers representing a legitimate independent news organization” to receive press credentials “under limited, rare circumstances.”
But in November 2024, shortly after Schott started UPW, the Legislature changed its policy. Now, credentials are only for “professional journalists” and “reputable organizations.” “Blogs, independent, or other freelance journalists” are specifically excluded.
Schott’s lawsuit claims the timing is no coincidence. Shortly before the policy change, Schott publicly butted heads over social media with the chief of staff for the Utah House of Representatives, who handles appeals of denials of press credential applications. His later reporting on accusations that Utah Senate President Stuart Adams skirted campaign finance laws — a charge Adams denies — seems to have thrown fuel on the fire.
Adams blasted Schott for his report, calling him “someone who claims to be a journalist.” The Utah Senate media liaison also allegedly disparaged Schott privately, deriding UPW as a “blog” and telling him, “You’re not a journalist.”
Days later, Schott’s application for 2025 press credentials was denied.
Denying press credentials because of a reporter’s point of view violates the First Amendment. The Iowa House of Representatives learned that lesson last year, when the Institute for Free Speech won a settlement for journalist Laura Belin after she was denied credentials.
Utah legislative officials argue that the change was based on the increasing numbers of freelance and independent journalists and concerns that they would be inundated with credentialing requests.
Even if that’s true — and Schott has presented powerful claims that it’s not — it is, in some ways, even worse. The Legislature should be celebrating the enhanced coverage that independent journalists bring to the statehouse and finding ways to accommodate them.
If the Legislature actually received thousands of credential requests — an unlikely prospect for a statehouse — that would be a win for transparency. It could also impose content-neutral criteria to weed out unserious requests, such as a demonstrated track record of reporting on the Legislature or a location that allows them to do so in person.
Maybe lawmakers don’t believe freelancers who publish online are journalists. But the Supreme Court disagrees. So does Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who last Congress co-sponsored a federal shield law that would have protected freelance and independent journalists from being forced to reveal their sources. Utah’s own reporter-source shield law also covers independent reporters.
More importantly, excluding independent journalists reduces Utahns’ access to information. These days, people across the political spectrum get their news through social media, podcasts, newsletters and even blogs. But Utah’s new policy would bar everyone from Joe Rogan to Paul Krugman from receiving a press credential.
That means independent journalists can’t attend press conferences and directly receive press releases, watch and record the legislative session from the media areas or access the statehouse floor.
Online recordings are no substitute. In-person reporting allows journalists to ask questions at press conferences, take pictures or video of proceedings and engage in off-the-cuff conversations with lawmakers and their staff.
Further, the vague terms used in the new policy empowers lawmakers to keep all watchdog journalists — not just independent ones — on a leash. Because the policy doesn’t define “professional journalists” or “reputable organizations,” government officials have great discretion to deny press credentials to any journalist. Utah journalists may reasonably fear that reporting too harshly on lawmakers could get them kicked off the “reputable organizations” list.
It’s not too late for the Legislature to reverse its ill-advised press policy and open the statehouse doors to the full press once again. Not only will that save lawmakers from paying taxpayer money to settle lawsuits, it will ensure that independent journalists can shed light on the Utah legislature for all citizens, no matter where they get their news.
(Caitlin Vogus) Caitlin Vogus is Senior Advisor for Advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation and a First Amendment attorney.
Caitlin Vogus is Senior Advisor for Advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation and a First Amendment attorney.
The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.
