Not Safe, Not Ethical, Not Protective of Human Rights: The Censorship and Vaccine Distribution

Who will get the vaccine first for Covid-19? It is a thorny ethical question that the National Academy of Medicine, among others, is trying to provide priorities for. A committee published a discussion draft of a preliminary framework last week.

I supplied testimony saying that under the current censorship of newsgathering in federal agencies and elsewhere, an equitable framework for distribution cannot be ensured.

Below is a slightly changed version of the testimony. (The uploading process ate the one going to the committee.)



Censorship on newsgathering in federal agencies and elsewhere has grown up over more than 25 years.

The restrictions are such that the information atmosphere is not safe, not ethical and not protective of the human rights of the people we serve.

I ask the committee to call for an end to this censorship, because it’s not possible to build a system for equitable vaccine distribution in the face of these restrictions that routinely withhold information and perspective from the committee, policymakers, health care professionals and the public.

Agencies and offices have banned staff on all levels from ever speaking to reporters without being overseen by the authorities, usually public information officers. On top of this chokepoint are built further obstructions, with reporters often completely blocked from speaking to the people they request. Please read the outtakes from FOIA-obtained HHS and CDC policies indicating among other things that it is not necessary to respond to reporters’ requests.

In many agencies there is no arrangement for routine access to the buildings either.

The Society of Professional Journalists surveys found similar restrictions have been instituted in various agencies and other entities around the nation. Those blockages will also put equitable distribution of the vaccine at risk. For example, we hear of hospitals attempting to put these bans on staff speaking to the press even in the absence of any privacy issue.

Over 60 groups have opposed the restrictions in letters to the Obama and Trump administrations and Congress. SPJ has called the rules censorship and authoritarian.

The Legal Perspective

Very importantly, First Amendment Attorney Frank LoMonte, head of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, published an extensive legal analysis finding that these controls are unconstitutional and many courts have said so.

After examining many Supreme Court and other cases, LoMonte said, “In short, there is no indication that federal courts widely understand Garcetti [the 2006 Supreme Court case that has been used to justify some of these policies] to have legitimized broadly worded prohibitions against discussing workplace matters,” calling such polices “constitutionally infirm and vulnerable to factual challenge.”

Extreme Danger of Controlled Information

I was reporting for The Nation’s Health during the frightening first years of the HIV epidemic. That was before censors were put on all conversations with reporters. As a matter of course the official story was so little of the real story it was manipulative. People on the inside gave reporters hard facts under the condition their names not be mentioned. One such conversation with a highly placed CDC scientist saved me from doing a truthful, well-sourced story that was so sanitized it could have helped kill people.

For many years before this pandemic these permission-to-speak rules, mandated oversight and blockages have kept reporters from understanding much about the federal health agencies. Many news stories are based on things the agencies push out through announcements, briefings, planned meetings, etc.

Now the narrative is that there are weaknesses, political interference and other issues discrediting FDA and CDC, for instance. One question is whether we should not have expected problems with agencies that strictly control public scrutiny of themselves.

There are real disadvantages to free speech. People will say wrong or unwise things. Our current information environment is often very bad.

There are also aspects about administering an organization that many journalists understand. Many entities have information that is legitimately confidential. Reporters have an obligation to understand the official story and not rely solely on people who talk outside the official channels. Agencies or offices frequently need a designated avenue for the official story and that might be a public information office.

However, information control by people in power has always been one of the most abusive and deadly things in human history. This process of attempting to distribute vaccine equitably, like other things impacting people’s health, should not be forced to go forward under those circumstances.