There is a certain elitism among journalists, the notion that those who answer the call are doing the people’s work and merit special treatment.

In fact, journalists are treated in a special way. We meet the famous, question the powerful, and witness significant developments in our society.

But it is important the news media not mistake this unusual access for special rights. If so, we become just another special-interest group, like the National Rifle Association or teachers unions, looking for favored treatment.

Given human nature, it is not surprising this unique position can lead to journalistic arrogance, which both liberals and conservatives cite as the news media’s cardinal sin.

This arrogance is a byproduct of how journalists do their job, which even media critics contend is vital to a free society.

However, a federal court decision that journalists have no more constitutional rights than private citizens is one that my colleagues should not only read but internalize. We may not like it, but it would be the height of arrogance not to understand that is how things must be.

U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles Jr. ruled Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich has the right not to talk to two Baltimore Sun journalists and to direct his administration to do the same.

Ehrlich says the two – one a reporter, the other a columnist – covered him unfairly, and he doesn’t want to deal with them. But he and those who work for him respond to other Sun staff members.

Now, one can argue with the wisdom of a politician picking a fight with the state’s largest newspaper when he faces re-election next year.

And Ehrlich’s behavior is not unheard of, although putting the policy on paper may be unprecedented. The previous Maryland governor, Paris Glendening, was so angered at a Washington Post reporter that he refused to acknowledge the man’s existence, much less answer his questions, according to an Annapolis reporter at the time.

Bad politics and even boorish behavior, however, can be constitutional. Quarles ruled that the newspaper sought more access for specific individuals than is available to average citizens.

First of all, let me acknowledge my potential conflict of interest. The Sun is owned by Tribune Co., which also owns the Orlando Sentinel. Sun Editor Tim Franklin was my boss in Orlando.

Yet with the obvious caveat that the governor and his staff must deal openly with the Sun through other staff members (and obviously all other media outlets), I find it hard not to accept the judicial reasoning.

The right to a free press belongs to the public, not the media. If government officials are communicating to the public through a variety of channels, that obligation is met.

No one would reasonably argue that it is a constitutional violation for a governor not to talk with an ordinary citizen.

This dispute is symptomatic of journalists’ failure to understand their place in American democracy when the definition of news media is changing almost daily.

Reporters are taught that they are the public’s eyes and ears in the councils of government. We invoke the public’s proxy in demanding information from government officials.

Increasingly, however, polls show many Americans see the mainstream media as just another special interest that does not represent them. We see the effects of that in declining newspaper circulation and network television-news viewership.

It is obviously true that the government must be accountable, and journalists have historically been the conduit when there were limited ways to communicate with the public. Today, though, technology has taken care of that problem.

The Sun lawsuit, which is expected to be appealed, did not allege and Quarles did not find that Ehrlich refused to deal with other journalists. Ehrlich refused to talk with two people and directed state officials just not to talk with them either. He did not ignore his responsibility to deal with the media.

One can understand why the Sun or any other newspaper does not want a politician, in effect, to be able to influence who can cover him by treating individual journalists differently.

This is common, however. Some reporters receive leaks while others do not. The careers of those who get those leaks are enhanced and their job security solidified.

The point is the action can be unfair and perfectly legal.

Quarles found that the Sun “seeks a privileged status beyond that of a private citizen. The Sun seeks the declaration of a constitutional right that neither the Supreme Court nor the 4th Circuit (Court of Appeals) has recognized – and, in fact, seeks more access than that accorded a private citizen.”

In a democracy, that is not the way it should be.