Lane Tracy: Clinton’s press freedom

On Aug. 31, you published an editorial by the Editorial Board and a Point of View column by Robin Hayes, chairman of the N.C. Republican Party. Both complained that Hillary Clinton has not made herself available to the press. Your editorial noted that since her nomination, Clinton had given 101 interviews on national news networks. But then you complained that she also gave more than 100 interviews “with local radio stations.” Precisely what is wrong with that? Did you get left out somehow?

Hayes’ column “Time to stop hiding” complained that “Clinton has gone longer without a news conference than any of the last eight presidents.” Your editorial contradicts that complaint. But you cite John F. Kennedy’s record of holding a televised press conference “an average of one every 16 days.” Are we now establishing some sort of national standard about how often and in what format presidential candidates must address the press?

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? J. Peder Zane defends that right on the same page that Hayes attacks it. So you must believe in freedom of speech as well as freedom of the press. Could we apply that connection to Clinton’s freedom to address or not address you?

This story was originally published September 3, 2016 at 6:00 PM with the headline "Lane Tracy: Clinton’s press freedom."