New York City's novel legal argument

Is there an actual legal argument in there, Mr. Attorney?

Lawyers for the city, responding to a request to unseal records of police surveillance leading up to the 2004 Republican convention in New York, say that the documents should remain secret because the news media will “fixate upon and sensationalize them,” hurting the city’s ability to defend itself in lawsuits over mass arrests.

In papers filed in federal court last week, the city’s lawyers also say that the documents could be “misinterpreted” because they were not intended for the public.

So, the defense is that the documents might be "misinterpreted" to show wrongdoing therefore they shouldn't be made public?

Think about the future uses of that precedent.