The Society of Professional Journalists’ 2017 resolution calling mandated clearance restrictions on journalists a “grave risk to public welfare,” was entered into the record of a Congressional hearing on proposed Scientific Integrity legislation, July 17.
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) requested the SPJ statement be entered during the hearing on the legislation, which would seek to ensure that federal scientists are free to communicate by such means as publishing, attending conferences, being part of professional groups, and responding to media requests for interviews without prior approval.
The SPJ resolution, on the other hand, cites its concerns regarding, “the harm done by restrictions on access, including mandates that reporters always go through PIOs.” It does not limit the concerns by the status of the person the reporter wants to talk to.
Cohen is also chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Justice.
The Scientific Integrity bill is sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and it is supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
As I noted earlier this year, the mere introduction of the bill may be important to efforts against the mandated clearance censorship (“Censorship by PIO”) because it includes the provision against prior approval for contacts with journalists. It’s the first time I know of there have been statements in Congress indicating any of the restrictions on reporters talking to people are deleterious. Currently there are heavy prohibitions in many agencies against employees speaking without permission and oversight.
Rep. Tonko and Sen. Schatz, wrote in an opinion piece on the bill in USA Today, “Information is power, and we don’t believe public science should be controlled solely by the political powerful.”
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) requested the SPJ statement be entered during the hearing on the legislation, which would seek to ensure that federal scientists are free to communicate by such means as publishing, attending conferences, being part of professional groups, and responding to media requests for interviews without prior approval.
The SPJ resolution, on the other hand, cites its concerns regarding, “the harm done by restrictions on access, including mandates that reporters always go through PIOs.” It does not limit the concerns by the status of the person the reporter wants to talk to.
Cohen is also chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Justice.
The Scientific Integrity bill is sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and it is supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
As I noted earlier this year, the mere introduction of the bill may be important to efforts against the mandated clearance censorship (“Censorship by PIO”) because it includes the provision against prior approval for contacts with journalists. It’s the first time I know of there have been statements in Congress indicating any of the restrictions on reporters talking to people are deleterious. Currently there are heavy prohibitions in many agencies against employees speaking without permission and oversight.
Rep. Tonko and Sen. Schatz, wrote in an opinion piece on the bill in USA Today, “Information is power, and we don’t believe public science should be controlled solely by the political powerful.”
No comments:
Post a Comment