A conundrum in the journalism world

To those that know me, it's no secret that I've been working with the Wal-Mart corporation for a little bit now. What once served as a way to get me through college is becoming something thats feeding my bills while I search for the job I actually want.

I would love to be in the newsroom environment everyday. For a combination of reasons, that hasn't quite happened quite yet. I firmly believe that when the correct time comes and the stars align themselves, I will attain the job I desire.

For the moment, I am trying to find various ways to break into the field.

This concept, however, is not the point of this blog in particular.

The point is the power that journalists once held. Journalists were once considered a fourth estate of the government. Now, access seems slightly more limited.

I thought of this notion while at work on Thursday.I was informed by several people that the Champaign Wal-Mart (I work at the one in Urbana) had small fire issue and had to evacuate.

It was nothing more than lightening striking just the right place and creating a little bit of smoke. With the hint of smoke, possibility of fire was presumed and thus the evacuation.

No one was harmed by the lightening strike, and it wasn't long before the store was back to business as usual.

I,however, began to ponder what would've happened in the case that something bigger did happen. Also, what would've happened had that happened and the local papers come knocking/calling.

I'm not sure what events put the policy in place, but no one in the store would be allowed to make any comments to the reporters. The Home Office would have to be called and spoken to and then only the possibility of anyone in the store speaking to reporters could exist.

To me, this seems like a small freedom of speech violation. I doubt (I hope) the company would go so far as firing someone who talked to a member of the press. Especially if it was a strictly just the facts situation. I could understand the notion more so (although it doesn't mean I necessarily support it)if the member of the Wal-Mart team went to the press with criticism or sensitive information.

Not only is this a battle for employees, but a battle for journalists. How are journalists supposed to be watchdogs and question the government if those governed aren't allowed to? By no means do I think the American public have their speech limited. Otherwise we wouldn't have the Tea Party and the alike.

I'm merely suggesting less information is being allowed out to the public. I definitely don't see this as a positive.

What do you think? Do you have similar stories?