Local journalism’s challenges were put on full display last month when a Mississippi state judge placed a restraining order on the Clarksdale Press Register’s publication of an editorial criticizing the mayor of Clarksdale, Mississippi, and its City Council. The city had sued the paper for defamation, and, after the judge’s order, the editorial disappeared from the Press Register’s digital site.
The piece in question had criticized the city for not alerting the newspaper to a City Council meeting about a proposed tax on alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco. The editorial noted that the Press Register didn’t necessarily disagree with all of the proposal, but the public’s business should be done in, well, public.
Fortunately, the city dropped its suit after Chancery Judge Crystal Wise Martin surprisingly decided in its favor. She subsequently rescinded her order to take down the editorial.
By then, though, her decision had reverberated widely, including among legal scholars who emphasized the judicial system has never recognized the right of a city to sue for libel. Advocates for a free press within the state and nationally decried the restraining order the judge placed on the newspaper.
Before the city backed off the lawsuit, Wyatt Emmerich, owner of the Clarksdale paper, had made it clear that he planned to appeal the decision. That was reassuring, but not all newspapers may be in the position to do the same if they face libel suits.
One reason is that community newspapers that serve small towns or suburbs do not always have libel insurance. Finances may be in short supply to buy coverage or to simply meet the deductible. Or the organizations may lack the expertise, staff, and time to find the most appropriate coverage.
Organizations like the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press have initiatives in some states to help local newspapers confront legal problems. Still, the lack of insurance may lead some newspapers to hesitate from speaking out against measures they consider harmful to their community and its citizens.
In some states, the situation is complicated by the fact that their citizens as well as local news organizations are not protected from lawsuits filed primarily to intimidate citizens from speaking out on a matter. In legal circles, these are known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or SLAPPs.
Fortunately, 35 states and the District of Columbia have adopted anti-SLAPP statutes. As a result, their citizens, including journalists, are protected from suits intended to silence someone.
But such a law does not exist in Mississippi. And Mississippi publishers are not alone in experiencing legal headwinds.
In 2023, a Kansas sheriff raided the headquarters of a local newspaper that had been investigating his office. Fortunately, the local county attorney required the sheriff to return any materials collected in the 90-minute raid. Meanwhile, the Marion County Record had to scramble to put out its weekly report.
Court cases and legal matters are not the only roadblocks compounding local journalists’ work. SMU Dedman School of Law professors Peter B. Stefensen and Thomas S. Leatherbury detailed several obstacles in a 2024 SMU Law Review article. One particularly troubling Texas example is the amending of the state’s public information act to include numerous restrictions on disclosing information to the public.
As one example, the pair write, the Texas Public Information Act now has a lengthy administrative process to resolve disputed requests. The process, they claim, “is easily manipulable to ensure that months could pass before a record ever sees the light of day.” The cost to the public is the slowing down of access to information, which makes it harder for local news organizations to get records that impact their readers’ lives.
The important point in all of this is that barriers to local journalists’ work impede the flow of reliable information that our democracy needs. That includes in our cities and towns, where local journalism’s chief role is to hold leaders responsible for their actions on behalf of their communities.
We want our tax dollars spent efficiently and effectively. We want our city halls free from corruption. We want our streets safe. But there is no guarantee a community will improve its quality of life without the information citizens need to make decisions.
