While media objectivity is a useful cultural myth, it's never been used by the courts as a basis for stripping away the Bill of Rights. Until Feb. 20, when, in a little-noticed decision, the Washington state Supreme Court upheld the 1990 demotion by the Tacoma News-Tribune of then-reporter Sandy Nelson.

Nelson sued the paper when it demoted her to a desk job for being publicly active in political issues on her off-hours. The Supreme Court ruled that, indeed, an employer has no right to infringe on basic First Amendment rights like freedom of speech outside the workplace. (Private property, of course, has long held legal precedence over such rights.) Except for journalists.

According to the court, First Amendment protection of freedom of the press supercedes state laws protecting political activity; and editorial objectivity is necessary for the press to be "free." By this tortured logic, the ruling specifically exempts reporters as a special breed of citizen, exempt from constitutional protection because of their job. (The author of the majority decision, judge Richard Sanders, is himself in hot water for speaking at an anti-abortion rally.)

Ironically, the complete absence of news coverage for what by any reckoning is an important ruling shows the false premise of the decision itself. Why is our media not objective? Why was Nelson's story not front-page news?

Because, for one thing, the media is very, very bad about reporting on the corporate and managerial practices of the media. For another, Nelson happens to be a lesbian, an ardent feminist and union supporter, and is associated with Radical Women and the Freedom Socialist Party, a "fringe" group local media outlets generally ignore. Sadly, most Seattle activists also ignored the Nelson case because of her FSP connection. It's too bad. Such Orwellian logic by the state's highest court--logic twists that invariably increase corporate and state power--need all the opposition we can muster.