In some respects, therefore, these events are less newsworthy than a freer give and take between interviewers and interviewee. To say, however, that attendance at such a news conference is not a legitimate news gathering activity is absurd. As a general proposition, the mayor is quite correct in his position that he is not required to respond in any way to any question put to him by any representative of any news media. Certainly no mandatory injunction requiring the mayor to answer questions would be granted, if for no other reason than its unenforceability. A free press is not necessarily an angelic press.
Newspapers take sides, especially in political contests.
Newspaper reporters are not always accurate and objective. They are subject to criticism, and the right of a governmental official to criticize is within First Amendment guarantees. But when criticism transforms into an attempt to use the powers of governmental office to intimidate or to discipline the press or one of its members because of what appears in print, a compelling governmental interest that cannot be served by less restrictive means must be shown for such use to meet Constitutional standards. No compelling governmental interest has been shown or even claimed here. The mayor suggests that there is no requirement that he hold any news conferences, and that he may select individual representatives of the news media with whom to meet in situations other than general news conferences.