A local newspaper is funding an effort to keep journalists out of the Capitol in Olympia.
I’m one of three Washington media figures—along with Brandi Kruse and Jonathan Choe—who were denied press credentials to cover the state Legislature in Olympia. Those credentials matter. They allow access to areas of the Capitol closed to the general public, including the wings of the House and Senate and designated press areas where lawmakers are available for questions.
Why Is a Newspaper Funding Efforts to Deny Press Access in Olympia?
The Spokesman Review "has financially contributed to enlist the services of attorney Kathy George, representing the association in this suit."
They are funding the lawsuit to deny us press passes. pic.twitter.com/YXXddGGB2g
— Ari Hoffman (@thehoffather) March 19, 2026
We challenged that denial in federal court because we believe the process violates fundamental protections—freedom of the press and due process, among them. Our argument was simple: journalists serve as the eyes and ears of the public, and access shouldn’t be denied based on viewpoint or the style of reporting.
The state and those defending the process saw it differently. Their attorneys argued that we are “opinion” journalists and pointed to claims that we’ve participated in or spoken at conservative events or rallies. In their view, advocacy disqualified us from being considered independent journalists.
A federal judge ultimately ruled against our request for emergency relief, saying we hadn’t shown enough—at this stage—to prove we were denied credentials because of political affiliation. That’s an important legal distinction, but it doesn’t resolve the bigger issue: whether the system itself is fair, neutral, or consistently applied.
And then another detail came out—that the media is funding this effort against fellow journalists.
The Spokesman-Review reported that one of its journalists is a member of the Capitol Correspondents Association, the group that has historically advised on who gets press access in Olympia. The same report also revealed that the newspaper financially contributed to help retain legal counsel involved in opposing our effort to obtain credentials.
A March 10 article in the outlet stated, “A Spokesman-Review reporter is a member of the Capitol Correspondents Association, and the newspaper has financially contributed to enlist the services of attorney Kathy George, representing the law firm pushing to keep certain journalists from accessing credentials.”
Now this isn’t just about whether we were granted access. It’s about whether members of the media are actively participating in efforts to keep other journalists out.
When a news outlet contributes financially to one side of a press-access dispute, it is no longer just covering the story; it is part of the story by advocating against other journalists. And when that dispute involves who gets recognized as legitimate press, the conflict of interest is impossible to ignore.
Is every outlet that has a reporter in the Capitol Correspondents Association contributing to fund the lawsuit to keep me, Brandi Kruse & Jonathan Choe out of Olympia?
The Spokesman-Review admitted it is funding the case to stop us from getting press passes. pic.twitter.com/8KKodfZWty
— Ari Hoffman (@thehoffather) March 19, 2026
The question isn’t whether someone prefers traditional reporting over commentary, or legacy outlets over talk radio and independent media. The media landscape includes all of those. The real question is whether a small group of established insiders gets to decide who qualifies as a journalist and who doesn’t, then box out the competition.
If access to government spaces can be limited based on vague standards about who is “independent,” and if news organizations connected to that process are financially supporting legal efforts to defend those decisions, then we have a serious problem.
And there’s another question that still needs to be answered: is The Spokesman-Review the only outlet involved, or are other members of the Capitol press establishment also contributing to this effort?
This issue is now about whether access to government is controlled by a small group of gatekeepers or open to a wide range of voices asking questions on behalf of the public.
In a healthy system, more scrutiny of government is a good thing. More reporters, more perspectives, more questions, that’s how accountability works.
But when members of the media begin helping fund efforts to keep other journalists out, it appears as if the outlets that are supposed to help hold the government accountable are now enabling and protecting its activities.
