The following is an email exchange between myself and Dean Baquet, former editor of the New York Times, October 7 - October 15, just prior to the Society of Professional Journalists' conference at which he was named a fellow of the society. Baquet was editor of the New York Times 2014-2022.
Mr. Baquet:
By orders of the government, there were no reporters in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for years prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. Contacts between reporters and employees were massively controlled, or simply blocked.
This is a crime against humanity.
The coverage of CDC during that period reflects those restraints. It is mostly material the agency pushed out, with some citations of outside sources.
If reporters had been walking the halls of CDC, or simply contacting people normally, without the public information structure manipulating or blocking every communication, we would have known much more about the weaknesses of the world's premier infectious disease agency.
The entire world's population was denied that potential.
Glen Nowak, a former chief of media relations for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has given a history of this censorship: presidential administrations of both parties have built on the controls of the prior administration, handing down instructions on who may talk and what may be said. The controls have been strengthened by every president since president Reagan and they are explicitly political.
The Association of Health Care Journalists repeatedly requested--one might say begged--HHS to allow reporters to speak to people AFTER going through the control process with the censors/PIOs. I was on the AHCJ Right to Know Committee.
New York Times health journalist Apoorva Mandavilli said, “It was an experience for me, unusual in science journalism, where you have to be the watchdog for these public health agencies,” and that journalists, "sort of more or less believe what the CDC and WHO said."
Mr. Baquet: the controls on information in CDC, prior to the pandemic and since, are an atrocity that inevitably increased the pandemic's severity.
Far worse is the fact the gag rules are near pervasive in society now, from Congressional offices and businesses to small town police departments.
They are so deep in our culture that numerous news outlets refer to source people as "not authorized to speak to the media," without even pausing to examine the horrific human rights abuse that authoritarian speech repression is--the moment it happens--or the other human rights abuses it induces.
Journalists reflexively say, "Good reporters get the story any way." We get some real stuff. However, there is no particular evidence we get five percent of what people in power don't want us to have. The many issues that emerge only after being hidden for years would argue against the idea the press has sufficient overview to even suspect those stories we don't get.
SPJ has issued a call to action against the restrictions. It has encouraged a movement resulting in three legal cases with good outcomes. This is based in great part on First Amendment attorney Frank LoMonte's research which says the gag rules are unconstitutional, many courts have said do, and journalists can sue on their own behalf.
The world is facing a new era in infectious diseases, climate change and a trend toward authoritarian rule.
For the press to not face up to the gag rules and openly oppose them is an astounding betrayal and a part of the threat to the human race.
SPJ is longtime leader in upholding journalism ethics. You have been named a fellow of the society. I was honored to receive the 2021 Wells Keys, the highest honor for a member, for work against the gag rules.
I'm calling on you to speak out against and continue to vigorously oppose the gag rules.
Thanks for your attention. I'd be happy to talk anytime.
There are resources below.
Kathryn Foxhall
cc. The Board of SPJ
[From Dean Baquet]
On Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 01:41:17 PM EDT, Dean Baquet wrote:
I really admire your efforts here. It’s a panel discussion so not sure if it comes up naturally, especially at a time when the future of journalism is top of mind. But it’s a worthy cause for sure.
Best,
Dean
From: Kathryn Foxhall
To: Dean Baquet
Cc: [The SPJ Board]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 at 09:01:06 AM EDT
Subject: Re: The gag rules and journalism ethics
I'm not necessarily talking about the panel discussion. Rather, I'm talking about speaking out about this at any time.
It is about the future of journalism. The gag rules are virtually everywhere now and becoming more aggressive.
Kathryn
