Reporters can claim, in the strictest legal sense, right of access to information or place that is not enjoyed by the private individual. For it is upon the individual's right to the enjoyment of freedom of expression - declared in Section 22 of the Jamaica Constitution - upon which the appropriate technology is superimposed to create the press, of which the journalist is a part.

But there are very important and practical reasons why the press is, in some circumstances, afforded special privileges in liberal democratic society. The import of technology in mass media is its capacity for amplification; the ability of the printing press and/or electronic transmission to reach large audiences in a fashion not possible by the private individual in direct communication.

At the same time, the assurance and insurance of liberal democracy are predicated on transparency, which includes, as the Jamaica Constitution makes clear, the right "to hold opinions and to impart ideas and information without interference". Indeed, it is these rights and the flow of information that they allow that help individuals to make informed decisions about government and governance, including their choice of those elected to lead. The press plays a significant role in helping the individuals and the wider community to exercise these rights, on whose existence its own capacity for survival exists. It is in this context that there has emerged this unwritten compact between the press and the community for the joint preservation of the right to freedom of expression.

But it is not only the community of individuals that derive benefits in affording some privileges to the press and its functionaries. The state, too, sees advantages.

For the liberal democratic state understands that its existence is founded in consensus; in people agreeing to be governed and therefore demand transparency in the process. It is not by accident that journalists, in the normal course of events, are provided special areas for work in, for example, the Parliament during meetings of the people's representatives. Similarly, journalists are afforded accommodation in the courts, where their contemporaneous reporting, except in specific circumstances, enjoy qualified privilege against charges of defamation. It is assumed that the justice system must be open and transparent to be credible and that the press acts as proxy for the public.

All the foregoing, we assume, is well understood and embraced by those who operate in and manage the justice system, as well as senior officials in public administration. They ought to know that as irritatingly intrusive as they assume the press to be, its intrusions help to account for an inherently better society.

It is in that context that we are surprised at an attitude appearing in Kingston's Resident Magistrates' courts that reporters are inconveniences to be done without. So, specific seating is not provided for the press and it seems that the managers of the system assume that they have no stake in helping to ensure that the information on proceedings reported by journalists is full and accurate.

For instance, court clerks said they had been instructed, by whom we are not clear, not to speak with reporters or to share information from court files with them, when, as we understand it, there are only specific circumstances, usually declared by the court in which such files are confidential. Hopefully, someone will rethink these directives.