Washington Post Publishes Opinion Piece on The Harm to the Public

In a recent Washington Post opinion piece, science writer Gabriel Popkin says, “Over the past few decades, one federal agency after another has thrown up barriers limiting the media’s access to researchers.”

His very good piece gives numerous illustrations on how the restrictions work. It’s one of the few in the major media on the mandated clearance of reporters’ requests to communicate with people and the related obstructions.

Popkin says, “This harms the public — and democracy itself. When agencies refuse access to experts who can explain how scientific knowledge is produced and how science-based decisions are made, understanding of and trust in government suffer.”

The author has worked with the National Association of Science Writers on the blockage issue.

He says, in one example, that a Food and Drug Administration public affairs officer would not put him in contact with an expert on the evaluation of genetically modified plants.

That’s a pervasive story: federal agencies first began prohibiting staff to speak to reporters unless the journalists go through public information offices. Now PIOs often don’t let the reporter through.

With these ethically plagued restrictions one question is whether the public may be better off if the reporter isn’t allowed to speak to the person requested. If the communication does happen it will be controlled by the agency’s eagle-eyed oversight. It’s a good bet that so much will go unmentioned the result can be technically accurate and badly misleading. Neither the journalist nor the public will likely understand how the narrative has been befuddled.