The Baltimore Sun has lost its case against the governor of Maryland. The paper sued because the governor banned members of his staff from talking to two Sun reporters. Baltimore blogger David Gerstman reacts:

In other words, government officials regularly favor some reporters over others without there being a “chilling effect” on the freedom of the press. By limiting the access of two reporters to certain state officials, Gov. Ehrlich didn’t exit the bounds of the normal interaction between the government and the media. Good for the court.
But the Sun shouldn’t get off so easy. For the past 15 months or so it has been involved in an adversarial lawsuits with the Governor, yet it didn’t stop reporting or commenting (usually disapprovingly) on his actions. Shouldn’t they have recused themselves from covering the governor while the suits were pending? Imagine how the Sun would have reacted if a judge suing a paper for libel was judging a case involving that paper?
The Washington Post also has this problem, though to a lesser degree. In a supporting brief the Post (and other organizations) argued This kind of official control of the press is characteristic of repressive regimes, but it is alien to nations founded on principles of free speech and free press. It is abhorrent to our Constitution and should be repudiated by this Court.“Repressive regimes?” Did Governor Ehrlich throw Olesker and Nitkin into jail because he disapproved of their writing? This rhetorical overreach should raise a concern as to whether the Post is objective in covering the governor.

Those of us who have written about the Post’s coverage of the governor know the answer to that question.