The article, Trump Administration Temporarily Mutes Federal Health Officials - The New York Times, is frighteningly misleading.
Over the last several decades federal agencies and many other employers have instituted gag rules that ban staff from speaking to reporters or ban any such contact without involvement of public information officers or other authorities.
Why are we now talking about the officials blocking the official publications and not mentioning the long-time gags on employees that are so damaging? Are the gag rules not authoritarian restrictions?
The world lost an estimated seven million people to the Covid epidemic after blunders by an agency that had intensely fended off reporters’ newsgathering for years, as it pleased or as its political minders mandated. A former CDC communications head has chronicled how the controls became worse from one administration to the next as there was no push back and the press said little.
Now other catastrophes are looming, some which could be existential threats to humanity, and 80,000 people in HHS are still gagged. Why is that not a news story?
Of course, that’s not even the beginning of the gag rule culture this nation has built.
Reporters who were working before the controls’ implementation know that the story often looks different when people can talk without guards on them.
If and when the federal health and science publications are once again distributed, they will have a tragically high likelihood of being politically controlled, not only because the Trump administration is in power, but also because these restrictions have been growing for decades and behind those curtains people can control information at will.
Things to Know About the Fight Against Gag Rules:
Last April investigative journalist Brittany Hailer won a favorable settlement, with strong First Amendment language, supporting employees’ and contractors’ right to speak to reporters. Hailer had filed a legal action against the Allegheny County Jail in Pittsburgh, which had such restrictions even in the face of an alleged high rate of inmate deaths.
Hailer’s settlement was a breakthrough because many people had previously thought that journalists could not bring such cases against gag rules on their own accord.
The Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed the suit on behalf of Hailer, whose reporting was funded in part by The Pulitzer Center.
Foundational thinking for such cases was provided by a 2019 report by prominent First Amendment attorney Frank LoMonte, currently Co-Chair of the Free Speech and Free Press Committee of the American Bar Association’s Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice.
In a summary report, LoMonte said of the constraints: “Media plaintiffs should be able to establish that their interests have been injured, whether directly or indirectly, to sustain a First Amendment challenge to government restraints on employees’ speech to the media.”
Further resources are here.
Will the New York Times tell this story?
Kathryn Foxhall
SPJ member
cc. New York Times Staff